ReportWire

Tag: political platforms and issues

  • Justice Department announces new rule to regulate pistol-stabilizing braces | CNN Politics

    Justice Department announces new rule to regulate pistol-stabilizing braces | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Attorney General Merrick Garland and Steve Dettelbach, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), announced new regulations Friday that would subject pistol-stabilizing braces to additional regulations, including higher taxes, longer waiting periods and registration.

    Gun control proponents argue that stabilizing braces – which can be attached to pistols – effectively transform a pistol into a short-barreled rifle, which are heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

    The rule will go into effect as soon as it is published in the Federal Register.

    “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to stricter legal requirements,” Garland said Friday during a call with reporters to outline the new rule. “Policy makers understood then what we know is still true today. Short-barreled rifles present a deadly combination: They are easier to conceal than rifles, but they are more powerful and lethal than pistols.”

    “The final rule submitted today makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers and individuals cannot evade the important public safety protections passed by Congress simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles,” he said.

    According to the Justice Department, manufacturers, dealers and individual gun owners have 120 days to register tax-free any existing short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. They can also remove the stabilizing brace or surrender covered short-barreled rifles to the ATF, the department said.

    “This rule enhances public safety … and helps ensure compliance with the firearms laws that Congress passed almost a century ago,” Dettelbach said on the same call. The rule makes clear, Dettelbach said, that “when pistols are accessorized with certain stabilizing braces, those pistols are converted into rifles” and should be treated as short-barreled rifles under the law.

    Restrictions on stabilizing braces have been hotly debated after they were proposed by the ATF in 2020, when the bureau suggested a new rule that would regulate pistol braces under the NFA. The 2020 proposal sparked a major backlash from the groups such as the National Rifle Association.

    Republican lawmakers also spoke out against the proposal and sent a letter to then-Attorney General William Barr saying that the proposed regulation was “alarming and jeopardizes law abiding gun owners across the country.” The ATF withdrew the proposed regulation after the letter was released.

    The proposal was given new life in 2021 after shooters in Boulder, Colorado, and in Dayton, Ohio, used pistols with stabilizing braces. At the time, Garland unveiled several proposals aimed at curbing gun violence, including reupping the restriction on pistol braces.

    “These requirements are important public safety measures because they regulate the transfer of these dangerous weapons and help ensure they do not end up in wrong hands,” the Justice Department said at the time. “The proposed rule would clarify when these attached accessories convert pistols into weapons covered by these heightened regulations.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US deficit widens by $85 billion in December | CNN Business

    US deficit widens by $85 billion in December | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Minneapolis
    CNN
     — 

    The US government recorded a deficit of $85 billion in December, bringing the total deficit to nearly $1.42 trillion for the 2022 calendar year, the Treasury Department reported Thursday.

    The government, which runs on a fiscal year that starts in October, is running a deficit of $421.41 billion for its fiscal first quarter of 2023, a 12% increase from the fiscal first quarter of 2022, Treasury data shows.

    December’s deficit was nearly four times as large as the $21.3 billion deficit recorded in December 2021 as spending grew and revenue fell last month. Receipts totaled $454.94 billion, while outlays were $539.94 billion in December 2022.

    Budget watchdog the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said the $1.4 trillion calendar year total is “staggering, considering the worst of the pandemic and the accompanying recession have been over for a long while now.”

    “We should not be borrowing $4 billion a day, an apparent debt addiction that is harmful to the economy and the budget,” Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB, said in a statement.

    The House Republicans’ rules package adopted earlier this week included measures aimed at reining in federal government spending and keeping a lid on taxes.

    The measures, several of which raised concerns even among cost-conscious Republican lawmakers, are sure to lead to battles later this year with the Democratic-led Senate and President Joe Biden that could have severe consequences.

    If the two parties can’t work out an agreement to fund the government for fiscal year 2024, which starts October 1, it could result in a shutdown. And if a war over spending cuts prevents Congress from raising the $31 trillion debt limit this summer or fall, it would risk a default on US debt that would roil the national and global economies.

    –CNN’s Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Illinois governor signs extensive ban on firearms and high-capacity magazines | CNN Politics

    Illinois governor signs extensive ban on firearms and high-capacity magazines | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Illinois’ Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Tuesday signed legislation that enacts an extensive ban on firearms as well as high-capacity magazines in the state.

    The new law caps the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines, bans “switches” that allow handguns to fire rounds automatically and “extends the ability of courts to prevent dangerous individuals from possessing a gun through firearm restraining orders,” the governor’s office said in a news release.

    The ban goes into effect immediately and will not require those who currently own such weapons to relinquish them, though people who already possess semi-automatic rifles will be required to register their ownership.

    “No Illinoisan, no matter their zip code, should have to go through life fearing their loved one could be the next in an ever-growing list of victims of mass shootings. However, for too long, people have lived in fear of being gunned down in schools, while worshipping, at celebrations or in their own front yards,” Pritzker said in a statement. “This legislation will stop the spread of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and switches and make our state a safer place for all.”

    The bill passed in a 34-20 vote in the state’s Senate on Monday and 68-41 in the House Tuesday, largely along party lines, before heading to Pritzker’s desk. Both chambers are controlled by Democrats.

    “This assault weapons ban is a step in the right direction, to improve safety for Illinois’ families and law enforcement but there’s no magic fix, no single law that will end gun violence once and for all. So, we must keep fighting, voting and protesting to ensure future generations will only have to read about massacres like Highland Park, Sandy Hook or Uvalde in their history books,” Pritzker said on Tuesday.

    In the Highland Park shooting, which took place at a Fourth of July parade in the Chicago suburb last year, the suspect allegedly fired more than 70 rounds into a crowd, killing seven people and injuring dozens more. The high-powered rifle that was used in the shooting was described by authorities as “similar to an AR-15” and was legally purchased.

    Several Republicans objected to the new law. State Rep. Dave Severin issued a statement in which he specifically criticized the registration requirement and supported legal challenges, while another representative, Charlie Meier, said the legislation “won’t prevent gang violence from occurring in our cities, however, it will unfortunately diminish law-abiding gun owners the right to protect themselves and their family at home.”

    Pritzker, who marked the start of his second gubernatorial term with Tuesday’s ban, has also signed legislation in the past to combat gun violence.

    In May 2022, the governor signed HB 4383, which prohibits individuals from selling or possessing so-called “ghost guns,” self-assembled firearms often put together with parts sold online, and ensures all firearms are serialized, allowing law enforcement to better trace them.

    Pritzker later signed HB4729 in June of last year, which requires the Department of Public Health to develop and implement a two-year public awareness campaign focused on safe gun storage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 4 gun traffickers charged in New York, marking the state’s 1st prosecution under the bipartisan gun safety bill enacted in June | CNN

    4 gun traffickers charged in New York, marking the state’s 1st prosecution under the bipartisan gun safety bill enacted in June | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Four gun traffickers have been charged with illegally selling over 50 firearms in Brooklyn, marking the first prosecution in New York state under a bipartisan gun safety law enacted last June, law enforcement officials announced at a news conference Wednesday.

    Known as the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the federal law includes a gun trafficking provision that creates a standalone firearm trafficking conspiracy offense, which New York prosecutors used to charge the gun traffickers. The act also provides increased sentences of up to 15 years in prison for such crimes.

    “Prosecutions of gun trafficking prior to the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act relied on statutes concerning unlicensed sale, transport, and delivery of firearms, and false statements made to firearms dealers. By using the new law in the charges today, we’re able to streamline those prosecutions by charging firearms trafficking conspiracy as a standalone federal crime,” US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Breon Peace said.

    “As the first prosecution to utilize this legislation in New York and one of the first in the country, we are demonstrating that we are prepared to use all the tools at our disposal, new and old, to combat gun violence,” Peace said.

    A seven-count indictment was unsealed in court, charging David Mccann, Tajhai Jones, Raymond Minaya, and Calvin Tabron with conspiring to traffic over 50 illegal firearms, Peace said.

    Prosecutors allege there were multiple illegal firearm purchases between January 2022 and August 2022, with the guns being sold during the day from vehicles in and around housing projects in Brooklyn.

    Two members of the gun trafficking operation allegedly got the firearms in Virginia and transported them to New York to be sold in Brooklyn, prosecutors said in a news release. Some of the firearms allegedly had defaced serial numbers and others were made from ghost gun kits, the release states.

    The group allegedly sold the guns to an undercover New York Police Department officer who recorded many of the transactions. The undercover officer allegedly told the group he was a drug dealer and needed the guns, with the intent to resell some of the weapons, prosecutors said.

    The guns recovered were traced back to several shootings in Brooklyn, prosecutors said, including one incident where eight people were struck by gunfire at a family celebration in Brooklyn in April 2022.

    Mccann, Jones, Minaya and Tabron were all arrested Wednesday morning, Peace said.

    Mccann and Minaya are also charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base. Mccann is also charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, prosecutors said.

    Mccann and Minaya are scheduled to be arraigned Wednesday afternoon.

    Jones and Tabron are scheduled to be arraigned in Virginia. They will have their detention hearings on Friday.

    Minaya’s attorney declined to comment. Mccann’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Tabron is represented by Federal Public Defenders, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Jones will have an attorney appointed to him by Criminal Justice Act, according to an EDNY spokesperson.

    This latest arrest marks one of the first instances where the law was used.

    Last September, a 25-year-old US citizen living in Mexico was charged in connection with trafficking firearms from Texas into Mexico. He was believed to have been the first person charged with part of the Safer Communities Act known as the Stop Illegal Trafficking In Firearms Act, according to a news release from the US Attorney’s Office from the Southern District of Texas.

    The 25-year-old alleged trafficker was caught driving south on Interstate 35 heading to the port in Laredo, Texas, when he was caught with 17 guns in his car, according to Justice Department officials. In all, he bought 231 firearms, investigators said.

    The bipartisan act, signed by President Biden in June 2022, was the first major federal gun safety legislation in decades and a significant bipartisan breakthrough on one of the most contentious policy issues in Washington.

    The legislation came together in the aftermath of mass shootings at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school and a Buffalo, New York, supermarket in a predominantly Black neighborhood.

    On Wednesday, Peace said the new law makes it easier to prosecute interstate gun trafficking cases.

    Eastern District of New York US Attorney Breon Peace speaks during a news conference.

    “Now we can charge the firearm trafficking itself without the obligation to show that someone was in the business of selling firearms and that’s a significant difference in what proof and evidence we would have to put forward,” Peace said, noting that the penalty has also increased. “Under the other statutes, the maximum penalties would likely be five or ten years. Under this Act, they’ll be facing up to 15 years.”

    NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell also spoke about the flood of illegal weapons from nearby states with more relaxed firearm regulations, commonly known as the “Iron Pipeline,” highlighting how police officers were killed in the line of duty with illegal guns from other cities.

    In December 2014, NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were shot and killed as they sat in their patrol car in Brooklyn, Sewell said. The gun was bought in a Georgia pawn shop before making its way to New York City, according to Sewell.

    A year later, Officer Brian Moore was shot and killed in Queens with a firearm that was stolen from a pawn shop in Georgia, Sewell said.

    Officers Wilber Mora and Jason Rivera were shot and killed last year while responding to a domestic incident with a gun that was stolen from Baltimore in 2017.

    “Every day, NYPD officers, with our partners, will continue to interdict, interrupt, investigate and hold criminals accountable,” Sewell said. “New Yorkers in every neighborhood should be free from fear and tragedy related to gun violence.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • GOP leaders and McCarthy holdouts defend deals as some Republicans complain they’re in the dark | CNN Politics

    GOP leaders and McCarthy holdouts defend deals as some Republicans complain they’re in the dark | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House GOP leaders and key negotiators won’t commit to publicly releasing details about the side deals Kevin McCarthy cut in order to secure the speakership, undercutting the Republican pledge to run their chamber openly and transparently and as some rank-and-file members call for more information about the promises that were made.

    While some of the concessions were spelled out in the House rules package, which passed with support of all but one Republican on Monday night, other promises – such as adding more members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus to committees and putting conditions on raising the national debt ceiling – were made through a handshake deal, leaving some lawmakers in the dark about the full extent of what McCarthy agreed to.

    “Operating in a vacuum doesn’t feel good,” one GOP member told CNN. “We’ve been loyal and it’s a slap in the face.”

    Rep. Nancy Mace, who represents a swing district from South Carolina, said, “It is essential” that members and the public hear from the GOP leadership about what those promises were, expressing frustration about learning about some of the promises through the press.

    “We know that there were certain members of that faction that were trying to get committee chairmanships or special committee assignments. We won’t know how that shakes out until (the House GOP Steering Committee) does its thing,” Mace told reporters, referring to the panel that sets committee assignments and will make those decisions in the coming days. “There’s still some questions that I think many of us have about what side deals may or may not have been made, what promises are made, what handshakes are made.”

    Further adding to the frustration and confusion, there was another document flying around K Street listing out all the alleged McCarthy concessions even as House GOP Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota asserted that the document is not completely accurate.

    On Monday night, McCarthy didn’t say whether he planned to release more details of the deals when asked by CNN. On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana would not explicitly promise to divulge the information. And Texas Rep. Chip Roy – who spent hours negotiating the agreement with McCarthy – and helped bring along the votes to get him the speakership, told CNN that much of what has been revealed has been publicly reported, contending that “there is no official list.”

    “Everything in life is about – how do you come to terms and agree?” Roy said. “You look somebody in the eye and you shake their hands and you move forward, and that’s precisely what happened.”

    At a closed door meeting on Tuesday, GOP leaders walked members through a slide presentation, detailing some of their budget and spending priorities. According to a screenshot of the presentation, which was obtained by CNN, the spending agreement includes vague promises, such as “reforms” to the budget process and mandatory spending programs, which could potentially include Social Security and Medicare.

    Also, the other concessions include capping federal spending at fiscal 2022 levels, something defense hawks fear could slash Pentagon programs. Also, there’s a promise to reject “any negotiatons with the Senate” on government funding bills if they don’t meet the terms of the forthcoming House GOP budget resolution and don’t cut domestic spending. Those demands will almost certainly be a non-starter in the Democatic-led Senate, raising the prospects of a government shutdown in the fall or stop-gap measures to keep agencies funded.

    In one of the biggest concessions with major economic ramifications, the slide presentation said House Republicans “will not agree” to a raising the nation’s borrowing limit “without budget agreement or commensurate fiscal reforms.” That demand already has drawn sharp pushback from Senate Democrats and could prompt a huge fight with the White House with the prospect of a first-ever default looming sometime this year.

    In the Tuesday meeting, McCarthy walked members through the concessions that were included in the rules package, such as restoring the ability of any single member to call for a vote ousting the sitting speaker – a demand from the hard right and something that could threaten his speakership. But there are other deals, such as committee assignments for the holdouts and giving the hard right members more sway over the legislative process, that have yet to be publicly released. McCarthy has also agreed to hold votes on some of the Freedom Caucus’ legislative priorities, such as a border security bill, imposing term limits on members and a balanced budget amendment, according to lawmakers.

    Asked by CNN if the American people deserve to know the side-deals that were cut to secure the speakership for McCarthy, especially given the GOP’s claims of supporting transparent government, Scalise was non-committal.

    “The speaker talked about that today, and some of the things involved making sure that our committees are represented by a full swath of our membership,” Scalise said at a news conference. “It wasn’t any person was committed a committee.”

    The Louisiana Republican added that committee assignments have yet to be doled out, which are part of the agreement. “The committees have to produce bills that come out of committee that represent the full swath of our conference,” Scalise said. “And so that’s something the steering committee is going to take up, and those decisions haven’t been finalized yet.”

    But he still wouldn’t commit to releasing the information about McCarthy’s side deals after the committee assignments are set, which will happen over the next few weeks. Once the committees are populated, then the chairs get to pick their subcommittee chairs.

    McCarthy sought to quell some of the concerns of members, telling them during a closed-door conference meeting on Tuesday that there is no secret “three-page addendum” to the rules package, even as some lawmakers have said they have seen such a document, according to sources in the room.

    Roy insisted to reporters that all is on the up-and-up, pointing to a December proposal he and others released about their demands for more say in the legislative process. He was less clear on which of those proposals McCarthy has signed off on.

    “There’s no back room deals … there’s no three-page addendum … there’s no official list,” Roy said. “Do you ever write down notes? Do you ever sit down and talk through like, say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do to agree on spending?’”

    As McCarthy was laboring to get the votes last week and faced demands from 20 GOP holdouts, the negotiations happened behind closed doors and were spread out among multiple rooms, leaving some to wonder if it was done so by design as many have said they have not seen the full extent of the promises made.

    Roy defended their closed-door negotiations and said everything McCarthy agreed to has come out publicly, and he ticked off some of those items – including promises to vote on bills to impose congressional term limits, secure the border and balance the budget.

    “Of course you have to go sit down behind closed doors and not debate this stuff in front of the cameras,” Roy said. “There’s nothing, to the best of my knowledge, nothing that has been part of all that that isn’t very public – including, by the way, a commitment by the speaker to work with us about how the committees are represented.”

    Rep. Don Bacon, a moderate who represents a Biden-won district in Nebraska, said he has only been briefed verbally by one of the negotiators about the additional concessions, but said he feels comfortable with what he has heard.

    “They were at least verbally briefed to me,” Bacon said. “I feel comfortable with the rules that were presented.”

    Yet the rules package adopted by the House on Monday doesn’t include some of the other deals.

    Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, another one of the McCarthy holdouts, defended the handling of the situation, arguing that some of the deals McCarthy cut weren’t included in the House rules package because they don’t pertain to the rules, which specifically operates how the House governs.

    He told CNN, “There’s no secret deal,” but acknowledged he does not know the full extent of promises the speaker made in order to secure the gavel.

    “All of this stuff is a moving target and there’s nothing,” he said. “There’s nothing clandestine about it.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    Here’s how the House GOP majority will try to curb federal spending and taxes | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In adopting their rules package Monday, the new House Republican majority has made it clear that they want to rein in federal government spending and keep a lid on taxes.

    The package, which governs how the chamber will operate for the next two years, lays out several measures aimed at making it harder to hike spending and to increase taxes to pay for it. Some of the provisions have been in effect previously when the GOP has controlled the House.

    The measures, several of which raised concerns even among cost-conscious Republican lawmakers, are sure to lead to battles later this year with the Democratic-led Senate and President Joe Biden that could have severe consequences for the nation.

    If the two parties can’t work out an agreement to fund the government for fiscal year 2024, which starts October 1, it could result in a shutdown. And if a war over spending cuts prevents Congress from raising the $31 trillion debt limit this summer or fall, it would risk a default on US debt that would roil the national and global economies.

    “I’m worried about the types of fiscal goals that they’re setting, that they’re not going to be achievable, and they’re setting themselves up for failure,” said Marc Goldwein, senior policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “I’m also worried that instead of both parties negotiating in good faith, we’ll be stuck in one of these dangerous standoffs.”

    The package swaps the pay-as-you-go rule for a cut-as-you-go requirement, as existed the last time the GOP ran the House.

    The former mandates that any new spending or tax cuts have to be paid for by spending cuts or tax increases elsewhere. But the latter requires only new spending be paid for, making it easier to cut taxes, said Shai Akabas, director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Another provision would restore the requirement that tax rate increases be approved by a 60% supermajority vote, making such efforts harder to pass and limiting lawmakers’ options to reduce the deficit or raise spending.

    Plus, the package makes it harder for House members to game the system by proposing legislation that would not raise spending in the first decade, the typical time frame Congress considers, but would in subsequent years. It does so by establishing a point of order, or an objection, against consideration of such a bill.

    What may prompt even more chaos on Capitol Hill are the side deals that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy made with conservative members of his party last week to secure their support for his leadership. The details of those agreements have yet to be made public, which has annoyed more than a few GOP lawmakers.

    McCarthy signed off on a pledge that the Republican-led House would pair any debt ceiling increase to spending cuts, which would add even more complexity to what’s expected to be difficult negotiations within the GOP and between the two parties.

    What’s more, McCarthy agreed to approve a fiscal year 2024 budget capping discretionary spending at fiscal year 2022 levels. That would require cutting all domestic discretionary spending by roughly 25% in inflation-adjusted dollars if defense funding is protected, Akabas said.

    Just how wed to these measures conservative Republicans are will determine the depth of the dysfunction in Congress this year. McCarthy’s slim majority in the House means he needs the support of nearly everyone in the party to pass any legislation.

    “It has yet to be seen whether these are immovable policy positions or policy preferences that are the starting point for negotiations,” Akabas said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Analysis: The speaker fight is over but the chaos is just beginning | CNN Politics

    Analysis: The speaker fight is over but the chaos is just beginning | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    This is not the end of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s nightmare, rather just the beginning.

    Having won the coveted job, the California Republican has leveled up to a new series of challenges with higher stakes for all Americans, and less room for error for a man who needed 15 tries to get the gavel.

    Related: Read this profile from McCarthy’s hometown

    This week Republicans must try to coalesce around the concessions McCarthy made and pass a package of rules to govern the House for the next two years. It’s an open question whether the party’s moderates, such as they are, will all buy in to the cut, cut, cut mentality McCarthy has agreed to.

    Unlike the Senate, which has standing rules that carry over from year to year, the House adopts a new rules package for each Congress. This year, in particular, as they take over from Democratic control, Republicans want to make their mark in the rules package. The Rules Committee has posted a text and summary of the proposed rule changes.

    Some of the new elements include things that amount to framing – replacing “pay as you go” language for budget matters with “cut as you go.”

    Other elements could have more concrete consequences, like forcing specific votes to raise the debt ceiling and enacting spending cuts before the debt ceiling is raised. That debate will come to a head in the coming months as the government runs out of authority to add to the $31 trillion national debt.

    On Sunday, Republicans all said they would try to avoid cutting defense and Medicare spending, which leaves a relatively small portion of the federal budget – think the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory arms of the government – from which to carve out spending.

    The other way, besides spending cuts, for the government to cut down on deficit spending, is to raise taxes. The proposed rules reinstate a requirement that a House supermajority of 3/5, rather than a simple majority, sign off on any tax increases.

    If McCarthy fails to live up to these promises, the rules also allow for any member to force a vote on a “motion to vacate the chair” – ousting him from the speaker’s chair – at any time. It would only take a handful of Republicans, along with all Democrats, to oust him.

    This rules package effectively limits his ability to negotiate with the Democrats who run the rest of the federal government. McCarthy can marshal House Republicans to vote for steep spending cuts, but his greatest difficulty will be in finding legislation that can pass the House and not be immediately rejected by the Senate or vetoed by President Joe Biden.

    Just like with his quest to be speaker, McCarthy will rely only on Republicans to pass the rules package and he can only afford to lose four.

    Republican Rep. Tony Gonzales of Texas has already said he will oppose the rules package because he worries it will lead to cuts in defense spending.

    “How am I going to look at our allies in the eye and say, ‘I need you to increase your defense budget, but yet America is going to decrease ours,’” Gonzales said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

    Another Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, said on the same program that she likes a lot of the rules package, but she is “on the fence” about it because it was formulated behind closed doors with fringe Republicans.

    It’s an irony both that the rules package is perceived as being hashed out behind closed doors and that those who held out on supporting McCarthy argued they were achieving a path to a more open government.

    We don’t yet know all of the concessions McCarthy made to bring the ultra conservatives along. Rep. Chip Roy of Texas denied during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he had been promised a position on the powerful Rules Committee, for instance. He said that would ultimately be up to the rest of the Republican conference.

    There was also some question about how McCarthy would enforce a pledge to cap spending for the 2024 fiscal year at 2022 spending levels.

    A main issue for Roy was that individual members should be able to offer amendments and get votes on spending bills on the House floor.

    Leaders from both parties have barred such amendments by the full House in order to pass bundled-up spending bills. They have relied on debate in the Appropriations and Authorization committees.

    Roy is among the critics who refer to Republican and Democratic leaders as the “uniparty” for this reason.

    “Too often bills are cooked up with handful of people, they’re brought through with the Rules Committee, jammed through, put on the floor and you have to vote yes or no,” Roy told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Sunday. “A little temporary conflict is necessary in this town.”

    He wants more of the openness and free form debate – the kind that Americans saw on the House floor during the speaker fight – to be present in spending discussions.

    “You say, ‘Well, are we going to have this kind of conflict going forward?’ I hope so,” Roy said.

    The idea that these debates are necessary was even being adopted by critics of the drawn-out speaker fight, like Republican Rep. Dan Crenshaw of Texas.

    “The more that you actually have everyone involved in it, the less likely it is that it gets blown up at the end,” Crenshaw told Tapper.

    But things will get increasingly difficult for McCarthy, and maybe the country, when he needs to negotiate with Senate Democrats and Biden – and also appease the fringe that does not mind a trip to the brink.

    Roy urged party leaders to work quickly and openly to find a path to raise the debt ceiling, rather than waiting until there’s a must-do-immediately moment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden heads to the border for the first time as president | CNN Politics

    Biden heads to the border for the first time as president | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden is heading to the US-Mexico border on Sunday on the heels of major policy announcements and following relentless calls from Republicans who believe the trip is overdue.

    The trip to the border – the first for Biden since he took office – comes as the administration wrestles with a growing number of migrants, overwhelming federal and local resources. Republicans, some border-district Democrats in Congress and even Democratic mayors have criticized Biden for failing to address record levels of border crossings.

    With his visit to El Paso, Texas, on Sunday, Biden is seizing on an issue that’s been a political liability for his administration, while calling on Congress to overhaul the US immigration system to meet current needs.

    But the patchwork of policies put in place by the administration to manage the border so far has often put Biden at odds with his own allies who argue that the administration’s approach is too enforcement heavy.

    “It’s enraging and sad to see a Democratic administration make it harder for vulnerable people to seek asylum all because they’re scared of angry MAGA voters on this issue,” a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus told CNN, responding to the latest policy announcements.

    Previewing the trip, a White House official said the president will “meet with federal, state, and local officials and community leaders who have been critical partners in managing the new migration challenge impacting the entire Western Hemisphere with record numbers of people fleeing political oppression and gang violence in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Haiti, and Cuba.” The president is scheduled to spend about three hours on the ground.

    Biden will evaluate border enforcement operations, touring the Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry alongside Customs and Border Protection officers, members of Congress and local officials and law enforcement.

    The White House said it’s the busiest port in El Paso and received $600 million under bipartisan infrastructure law.

    Biden will then visit the El Paso County Migrant Services Center to meet with local officials, faith leaders and non-governmental organizations “who have been critical to supporting migrants fleeing political oppression and economic collapse in their home countries.”

    The official said the president will also spend time with local business leaders to hear about the economic impact of migration in the region and worker shortages.

    Biden will be joined by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; Texas Reps. Veronica Escobar, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, all Democrats; El Paso Mayor Oscar Leeser; El Paso County Judge Ricardo Samaniego; and additional community and business leaders.

    Mayorkas on Sunday defended Biden’s approach to addressing the migrant surge at the southern border, saying the administration was operating in a humane but necessary way.

    “We are dealing with in a broken immigration system that Congress has failed to repair for decades, and there is unanimity with respect to that reality,” Mayorkas told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week,” while attributing the surge to regional displacement impacting the entire Western Hemisphere.

    “We want individuals who qualify for relief under our laws to come to the United States in a safe and orderly way. And that is why we are building lawful pathways so people do not have to place their lives and their life savings in the hands of ruthless smugglers,” he said.

    Mass movement across the Western Hemisphere has posed an urgent challenge for Biden, who in his first few months in office faced a surge of unaccompanied migrant children at the border and later, the abrupt arrival of thousands of Haitian migrants.

    Since 2021, there have been more than 2.4 million arrests along the US-Mexico border, according to US Customs and Border Protection data. That includes people who have attempted to cross more than once. Many have also been turned away under a Trump-era Covid restriction known as Title 42 that allows federal authorities to expel migrants quickly, citing the Covid-19 pandemic.

    The arrival of thousands of migrants has strained border communities, including El Paso. The city has prided itself on being a welcoming place for migrants but has been overwhelmed in recent months with the sudden arrival of thousands of migrants, straining local resources and prompting pleas for federal assistance.

    Anxiety about the scheduled end of Title 42 prompted thousands of migrants in recent weeks to turn themselves in to border authorities or to cross into the United States illegally in a very short period.

    The policy was scheduled to lift last month, but a Supreme Court ruling kept the rule in place while legal challenges play out in court.

    Federal data shared with CNN indicates that migrant encounters in El Paso have dropped drastically since December, when thousands crossed on a daily basis.

    There have been less than 700 daily encounters on average over the last few days, compared to nearly 2,500 at its peak in December, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

    DHS said it deployed 100 additional personnel to the El Paso region in December, and this week, the department will open another temporary facility to process migrants. Shelters in Juarez, Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, have also seen a decrease in migrants, DHS said.

    Biden has said he wanted to wait until he knew an outcome in the Title 42 legal machinations before traveling to the border and accused Republicans calling for him to travel there of playing political games.

    “They haven’t been serious about this at all,” he said.

    El Paso has been at the center of the immigration debate dating back to the Trump administration, which piloted the controversial family separation policy in the region.

    While Biden has condemned Trump-era immigration policies, his own administration has wrestled with striking a balance between enforcement and holding up its humanitarian promises.

    In El Paso, Biden will be faced with the history of his predecessor and the challenges he faces as the administration tries to stem the flow of mass migration in the hemisphere.

    He’ll also be visiting a state whose governor has been a fierce critic of the Biden administration’s immigration policies. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who already criticized the president’s upcoming visit on Twitter, has sent thousands of migrants on buses to Democratic-led cities and deployed the National Guard along the Texas-Mexico border, including in El Paso.

    In recent months, the El Paso sector has surpassed the Rio Grande Valley sector in migrant arrests. RGV has historically been one of the busiest sectors for border crossings. The El Paso sector patrols 268 miles of international border.

    Last November, border authorities encountered more than 53,000 migrants in the El Paso sector, according to the latest available data from US Customs and Border Protection.

    Last year, El Paso – whose mayor, Leeser, is a Democrat – began sending migrant buses to New York City, following in the footsteps of Republican governors, to try to get people to their destination and decongest the city. That effort has since stopped.

    Escobar, who represents El Paso, said in a tweet that she’s “excited” to welcome Biden to the city. While she didn’t place a big emphasis on Biden visiting the border, she made clear she welcomed it in recent weeks and urged the federal government to provide assistance to the city.

    John Kirby, the National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications, said that the president is looking forward to seeing firsthand the situation on the border ahead of the North American Leaders’ Summit in Mexico City.

    “The President is very much looking forward to seeing for himself first-hand what the border security situation looks like, particularly in El Paso. He’s very much also interested in getting to talk to Customs and Border Patrol agents on the ground who are actually involved in this mission to get their first-hand perspectives of it,” Kirby told reporters Friday.

    Ahead of Biden’s border visit, the administration also announced plans to expand the policy and include Haitians, Nicaraguans and Cubans while it remains in place. Title 42 has so far largely applied to migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and Venezuela.

    The announcements Biden made Thursday reflect the administration’s effort to prepare for the end of Title 42, along with putting in place programs to manage the surge of migrants that have coincided with the anticipated end of the rule.

    The administration will now accept up to 30,000 migrants per month from Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, and Venezuela under a humanitarian parole program geared toward those nationalities. Those who do not come to the US under that program may be expelled to Mexico under Title 42.

    The announcement drew criticism from immigrant advocates and Democrats who argued the policies will put migrants who are seeking asylum in harm’s way.

    “The expansion of Title 42 to include Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans is a broken promise,” said Dylan Corbett, executive director of Hope Border Institute, in a statement. Hope Border Institute has been assisting migrants who have arrived in El Paso.

    “Border communities will continue to work hard to pick up the broken pieces of our nation’s immigration system and show that our future lies not with expulsion and deportation, but with humanity and hope,” he added.

    Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus grilled top Biden officials, including Mayorkas, over the newly announced border policies in a call Thursday, according to two sources in attendance.

    Members felt blindsided by the new policies and frustrated with the lack of engagement prior to their rollout, the sources said.

    “It was really heated,” one source said, adding that members were “livid” that the administration didn’t consult with them ahead of time. The call included officials with the Department of Homeland Security and the White House.

    One of the sources of tension during the call was a new asylum regulation that could bar migrants who are seeking asylum in the United States from doing so if they passed through another country on their way to the US-Mexico border. The restrictions are reminiscent of limits rolled out during the Trump administration, though officials have rejected the comparison.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chaos in Congress sends an ominous signal to Wall Street | CNN Business

    Chaos in Congress sends an ominous signal to Wall Street | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Many on Wall Street cheered last fall when the midterm elections ushered in a return of divided government in Washington.

    The old mantra is that gridlock is good because it means neither political party can mess things up.

    But the historic dysfunction playing out in Congress this week is a reminder that you should be careful what you wish for. While gridlock might be good for markets and the economy, complete paralysis is bad because, every so often, government needs to get stuff done.

    House Republicans’ inability to pick a speaker on the first ballot (or second or third) for the first time in a century raises an ominous question: If lawmakers can’t pick a speaker, how can they tackle truly thorny issues like raising the debt ceiling or responding to a potential recession?

    “We’re watching a slow-moving trainwreck collide with a dumpster fire,” Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at BTIG, told CNN in a phone interview. “This is a clear indication we will have dysfunction for the entirety of this Congress, which heightens the risk around must-act deadlines such as the debt ceiling.”

    One New York Stock Exchange trader, a self-described conservative, told CNN on Tuesday the situation in the House is “disturbing” because it suggests lawmakers will struggle to get even more important things done.

    “This is a joke. The party can’t get its [stuff] together. It’s a disgrace,” said the trader, who requested anonymity to discuss the situation candidly.

    Even if Republicans eventually coalesce around Rep. Kevin McCarthy or a consensus candidate for speaker, the past few days have made plain to investors, economists and the public just how ungovernable the GOP majority in the House appears to be.

    “This is not gridlock so much as a rudderless ship without a captain,” Chris Krueger of Cowen Washington Research Group wrote in a note titled, “Burning down the House: Speaker vote opening act for 2 years of tail risk.”

    Krueger said the 4,000-page spending bill passed by Congress last month removed “a lot of the sharp objects” that could harm the economy.

    But lawmakers did not agree to tackle the debt ceiling, the borrowing limit that must be raised to avoid a calamitous US debt default.

    It’s not hard to imagine the ungovernable GOP majority clashing with Democrats and the White House this summer and fall over the debt ceiling — with the entire world economy hanging in the balance.

    Even before the House speaker stalemate, Goldman Sachs warned late last year that 2023 could bring the scariest debt ceiling fight since that infamous 2011 episode that cost America its perfect AAA credit score.

    In the past, brinksmanship over the debt ceiling eventually gave way to a compromise, though often not until significant pressure was applied by business leaders, financial markets — or both.

    It’s not clear how a debate over the debt ceiling will play out this time though, given the narrowly divided Congress and skepticism from Republicans about corporate America.

    “Our concern is that an increasingly populist GOP is less tied to big business influence, while a narrow majority amplifies their influence,” Benjamin Salisbury, director of research at Height Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients on Wednesday.

    Of course, the “House of Cards”-style drama playing out in Congress is not the most pressing issue facing the economy and investors right now.

    The biggest questions concern whether the US economy is about to stumble into a recession (or a “slowcession,” if you ask Moody’s) and how long the Federal Reserve will keep up its fight against inflation.

    Later this week, on Friday, investors will be laser-focused not on McCarthy’s fate but on the monthly jobs report and what it says about efforts to cool down the labor market.

    Andrew Frankel, co-president of Stuart Frankel, dismissed the House speaker race as a “big, fat nothing-burger” for the market and said it was “just noise.”

    “It’s all about the Fed,” Frankel said.

    And yet the stalemate in the House underscores how hard it will be for lawmakers to aggressively respond to a potential recession or another crisis in the next two years.

    Although there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic about a soft landing, former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan warns a recession is still the most likely outcome.

    Greenspan, senior economic adviser at Advisors Capital Management, said in a discussion posted online that inflation will not cool enough to avoid “at least a mild recession” induced by the Fed.

    “We may have a brief period of calm on the inflation front, but I think it will be too little too late,” Greenspan said.

    If there is a recession, the chaos in Washington suggests the economy may not be able to count on a timely rescue from Congress this time around.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court asked to step in on New York concealed carry firearm law | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court asked to step in on New York concealed carry firearm law | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New York Attorney General Letitia James asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow a new state law that places restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm to stay in effect while legal challenges play out.

    The dispute is the first time the court has been asked on an emergency basis to consider a significant Second Amendment case since last summer’s ruling that expanded gun rights nationwide.

    In that case, New York State Rifle v. Bruen, the court struck down New York’s prior concealed carry gun law. A 6-3 majority said the law prevented law-abiding citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs” from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

    Just days after the opinion, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, convened a special legislative session to pass a new law called the “Concealed Carry Improvement Act” on July 1. But the new law came under immediate attack as gun owners said that it was in direct “defiance” of the Supreme Court decision and continued to make it too difficult for ordinary citizens to obtain concealed carry permits.

    Last fall, a district court blocked key provisions of the new law, related to requirements that an applicant demonstrate “good moral character,” provide a list of all former and current social media accounts from the past three years and “sensitive place” restrictions that include health care settings, churches and parks.

    In December, however, a federal appeals court put that decision on hold and ordered expedited consideration of the matter with opening briefs due on January 9. Now, gun owners want the Supreme Court to step in.

    In an emergency application filed on December 21, a lawyer for the gun owners asked the justices to step in and he defended the district court opinion. He said it was “carefully designed to limit New York’s enforcement of a sweeping gun control statute, enacted in retaliation against New York gun owners” for having prevailed in the Bruen case.

    The lawyer, Stephen D. Stamboulieh, said that the 184 page opinion was “meticulously tailored” to “uphold the right of New Yorkers to keep and bear arms.”

    The justices are not considering the merits of the case, only whether to lift the appeal court order pending appeal.

    “Although it comes in an emergency -application posture, the request represents the first chance for the justices to weigh in on how lower courts are applying the Bruen decision and its new doctrinal framework for Second Amendment cases,” said Andrew Willinger of the Duke University School of Law.

    In Tuesday’s filing, James said the district court’s opinion was “riddled with errors” and urged the justices to stay out of the dispute and let the appeals court ruling stand. She stressed that the appeals court had expedited consideration of the new law and that “further percolation of the relevant issues in the lower court is needed to inform” the Supreme Court’s review.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Five political trends that could make 2023 a momentous year | CNN Politics

    Five political trends that could make 2023 a momentous year | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Republicans’ take over of the House this week will usher in a two-year political era that threatens to bring governing showdowns and shutdowns as a GOP speaker and Democratic president try to wield power from opposite ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    The unprecedented possibility that former President Donald Trump, who’s already launched another bid for the White House, could face indictment could tear the nation further apart at a moment when American democracy remains under grave strain. The already stirring 2024 presidential campaign, meanwhile, will stir more political toxins as both parties sense the White House and control of Congress are up for grabs after the closely fought midterms.

    Abroad, the war in Ukraine brings the constant, alarming possibility of spillover into a NATO-Russia conflict and will test the willingness of American taxpayers to keep sending billions of dollars to sustain foreigners’ dreams of freedom. As he leads the West in this crisis, President Joe Biden faces ever more overt challenges from rising superpower China and alarming advances in the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

    If 2022 was a tumultuous and dangerous year, 2023 could be just as fraught.

    Washington is bracing for a sharp shock. Since November, the big story has been about the red wave that didn’t arrive. But the reality of divided government will finally dawn this week. A House Republican majority, in which radical conservatives now have disproportionate influence, will take over one half of Capitol Hill. Republicans will fling investigations, obstruction and possible impeachments at the White House, designed to throttle Biden’s presidency and ruin his reelection hopes.

    Ironically, voters who disdained Trump-style circus politics and election denialism will get more of it since the smaller-than-expected GOP majority means acolytes of the ex-president, like expected House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, will have significant sway. The new Republican-run House represents, in effect, a return to power of Trumpism in a powerful corner of Washington. If House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy wins his desperate struggle against his party’s hardliners to secure the speakership, he’ll be at constant risk of walking the plank after making multiple concessions to extreme right-wingers.

    A weak speaker and a nihilistic pro-Trump faction in the wider GOP threaten to produce a series of spending showdowns with the White House – most dangerously over the need to raise the government’s borrowing authority by the middle of the year, which could throw the US into default if it’s not done.

    As Democrats head into the minority under a new generation of leaders, government shutdowns are more likely than bipartisanship. The GOP is vowing to investigate the business ties of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, and the crisis at the southern border. The GOP could suffer, however, if voters think they overreached – a factor Biden will use as he eyes a second term.

    In the Senate, Democrats are still celebrating the expansion of their tiny majority in the midterms. (After two years split at 50-50, the chamber is now 51-49 in their favor). Wasting no time in seeking to carve out a reputation among voters as a force for bipartisanship and effective governance, the president will travel to Kentucky this week. He’ll take part in an event also featuring Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, to highlight the infrastructure package that passed with bipartisan support in 2021.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland could shortly face one of the most fateful decisions in modern politics: whether to indict Trump over his attempt to steal the 2020 election and over his hoarding of classified documents.

    A criminal prosecution of an ex-president and current presidential candidate by the administration that succeeded him would subject the country’s political and judicial institutions to more extreme strain than even Trump has yet managed. The ex-president has already claimed persecution over investigations he faces – and an early declaration of his 2024 campaign has given him the chance to frame them as politicized.

    If Trump were indicted, the uproar could be so corrosive that it’s fair to ask whether such an action would be truly in the national interest – assuming special counsel Jack Smith assembles a case that would have a reasonable chance of success in court.

    Yet if Trump did indeed break the law – and given the strength of the evidence of insurrection against him presented in the House January 6 committee’s criminal referrals – his case also creates an even more profound dilemma. A failure to prosecute him would set a precedent that puts ex-presidents above the law.

    “If a president can incite an insurrection and not be held accountable, then really there’s no limit to what a president can do or can’t do,” outgoing Illinois GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a member of the select committee, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday.

    “If he’s not guilty of a crime, then I, frankly, fear for the future of his country because now every future president can say, ‘Hey, here’s the bar.’ And the bar is, do everything you can to stay in power.”

    Like it or not, with his November announcement, Trump has pitched America into the next presidential campaign. But unusual doubts cloud his future after seven years dominating the Republican Party. His limp campaign launch, bleating over his 2020 election loss and the poor track record of his hand-picked election-denying candidates in the midterms have dented Trump’s aura.

    Potential alternative figureheads for his populist, nationalist culture war politics, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are emerging who could test the ex-president’s bond with his adoring conservative base. Even as he fends off multiple investigations, Trump must urgently show he’s still the GOP top dog as more and more Republicans consider him a national liability.

    Biden is edging closer to giving Americans a new piece of history – a reelection campaign from a president who is over 80. His success in staving off a Republican landslide in the midterms has quelled some anxiety among Democrats about a possible reelection run. And Biden’s strongest card is that he’s already beaten Trump once. Still, he wouldn’t be able to play that card if Trump fades and another potential GOP nominee emerges. DeSantis, for example, is roughly half the current president’s age.

    As 2023 opens, a repeat White House duel between Trump and Biden – which polls show voters do not want – is the best bet. But shifting politics, the momentous events in the months to come and the vagaries of fate means there’s no guarantee this will be the case come the end of the year.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year showed how outside, global events can redefine a presidency. Biden’s leadership of the West against Moscow’s unprovoked aggression will be an impressive centerpiece of his legacy. But Russian President Vladimir Putin shows every sign of fighting on for years. Ukraine says it won’t stop until all his forces are driven out. So Biden’s capacity to stop the war from spilling over into a disastrous Russia-NATO clash will be constantly tested.

    And who knows how long US and European voters will stomach high energy prices and sending billions of taxpayer cash to arm Ukraine if Western economies dip into recession this year.

    Biden has his hands full elsewhere. An alarming airborne near miss between a Chinese jet and US military jet over the South China Sea over the holiday hints at how tensions in the region, especially over Taiwan, could trigger another superpower standoff. Biden also faces burgeoning nuclear crises with Iran and North Korea, which, along with Russia’s nuclear saber rattling, suggests the beginning of a dangerous new era of global conflict and risk.

    Rarely has an economy been so hard to judge. In 2022, 40-year-high inflation and tumbling stock markets coincided with historically low unemployment rates, which created an odd simultaneous sensation of economic anxiety and wellbeing. The key question for 2023 will be whether the Federal Reserve’s harsh interest rate medicine – designed to bring down the cost of living – can bring about a soft landing without triggering a recession that many analysts believe is on the way.

    Washington spending showdowns and potential government shutdowns could also pose new threats to growth. The economy will be outside any political leader’s capacity to control, but its state at the end of the year will play a vital role in an election that will define America, domestically and globally after 2024.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A pregnant mom crossed the Rio Grande decades ago to give her unborn child a better life. Now her daughter is becoming a member of Congress | CNN Politics

    A pregnant mom crossed the Rio Grande decades ago to give her unborn child a better life. Now her daughter is becoming a member of Congress | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Delia Ramirez walks toward the microphone determined to make her message heard.

    “It is time – it is past time that we deliver on the promise that we have made to our Dreamers,” she says.

    On a crisp morning in early December, Ramirez is standing steps away from the US Capitol, with its white dome gleaming against the blue sky behind her. This is a rallying cry we’ve heard here time and again – but Ramirez hopes when she says it, the words will carry even more weight. This isn’t merely a talking point from her campaign platform.

    “This,” the Illinois lawmaker says, “is very personal for me.”

    It’s personal because if Congress doesn’t act, Ramirez’s husband could be among hundreds of thousands of people facing possible deportation. And it’s personal because Ramirez herself is about to become a member of Congress.

    She’s called this news conference, flanked by several of her fellow incoming freshmen lawmakers and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, a Washington state Democrat, to push for members of Congress to pass several key pieces of legislation while Democrats still control the US House. Among them: the DREAM Act, which would give a possible pathway to citizenship to some 2 million undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

    “I am the wife of a DACA recipient. I am the daughter of Guatemalan working immigrants. I know firsthand the challenges and constant fear our families live every single day,” Ramirez tells reporters. “We have to end this.”

    That’s far easier said than done, as decades of debate over immigration reform on Capitol Hill clearly show.

    But Ramirez says no matter how many obstacles pop up in her path, she’ll keep pushing.

    As constant and controversial as conversations around immigration in Washington have become, many lawmakers weighing in don’t have direct personal connections to the issues they’re debating.

    Ramirez, 39, has lived them her entire life.

    Her mom was pregnant with her when she crossed the Rio Grande – a detail Ramirez made a point to include in a candidate bio on her campaign website, which notes that her mom went on to work “multiple low-wage jobs to give her children a fighting chance to escape poverty.”

    Ramirez says over the years some of her political opponents have tried to use details like this from her background against her, accusing her of being in favor of open borders and speaking dismissively about her family during debates. But Ramirez sees her family’s story as a strength that’s helped her connect with voters and better understand the issues that matter to her constituents.

    “I didn’t have to shy away from the fact that I’m working class and my husband’s a DACA recipient, that I’m worried about how I’m going to pay for housing. That is the reality of so many people,” she says. “And I want men and women, young and old, to see me and think, ‘That was my m’hija, That was my daughter.’ Or…’I’m an intern somewhere and I don’t feel seen. But if she could do it, so can I.’”

    Ramirez says the story of her mom’s journey from Guatemala to the United States infused her childhood in Chicago, where Ramirez was born.

    According to the story Ramirez grew up hearing, when her mom crossed the Rio Grande, strong currents nearly swept her away. She’d hidden her pregnancy from others on the journey, but in that moment she called out in desperation, “Help! Help! Save me! Save my daughter!” A man did, Ramirez says, but after that day, her mom never saw him again.

    As she struggled with depression as a teenager, Ramirez says her mom would frequently invoke this part of her past, saying, “I nearly died so that you could be born. Now I have to fight to keep you alive.”

    That struggling teen, Ramirez says, would never have imagined that she’d run a homeless shelter and other successful nonprofits, go on to become a state lawmaker and one day be on the cusp of entering US Congress.

    “But that is the journey, right?” Ramirez says. “Maybe not the Congress part as often as it should be, but the journey of so many people and so many children of immigrants who contribute and do so much for this country.”

    How does her family’s journey shape her view of what’s unfolding now at the border?

    “I am clear that anyone willing to risk dying, starving or even being raped in the long journey through desert, cold and tunnels is crossing because they feel like there is no other solution to their situation. Their migration is the only way they see themselves and loved ones surviving deep poverty and, in some cases, persecution,” Ramirez says.

    “My mother wouldn’t have risked my life or hers had it not been the only option she saw for her unborn child to have a chance at a life and childhood better than hers.”

    As Ramirez shares these and other details from her past with CNN in the Longworth House Office Building one evening in early December, an aide steps in with her phone in hand.

    “It’s time,” he tells her.

    Ramirez is still an Illinois state legislator for a few more weeks, and she needs to vote on a measure that might not pass if she doesn’t.

    She holds the phone in one hand and looks into the camera.

    “Representative Ramirez votes yes,” she says, then hands the phone back to her aide.

    “Done,” she says with a triumphant smile.

    It’s the latest in numerous bills Ramirez has helped pass since her 2018 election to the Illinois General Assembly.

    In that way alone, she knows it will be an adjustment to work as a lawmaker in Washington, where partisan fights often get in the way of passing laws.

    She still remembers the first state bill she sponsored that passed in March 2019 – a measure to expand homelessness prevention programming, a top concern for Ramirez, who previously directed a homeless shelter.

    “It was a very emotional moment,” she says. And the first thing she did after the bill passed, she says, was call her mom and share the news.

    Ramirez in a portrait from her campaign website.

    “I said, ‘Mom, in three months I was able to do more (to prevent homelessness) than I had done in almost 15 years,’” Ramirez recalls.

    Her mom responded that she was proud but reminded Ramirez that her work wasn’t finished.

    “Go hang up, and do more,” she said, according to Ramirez. “And don’t forget where you come from.”

    It’s with that mantra in mind, and with memories of growing up as the daughter of immigrants who worked multiple jobs to support their family in Chicago, that Ramirez is heading to Washington.

    Both her parents are US citizens now, but Ramirez says they’re still struggling to make ends meet.

    “I am the daughter of a woman who at 61 has given so much to this country and is a minimum-wage worker that can’t afford health care, so she’s on Medicaid, and diabetic,” Ramirez says. “I am the daughter of a man who spent 30 years working in an industrial bakery, a union busting company, and the day he retired, he got a frozen pie. He didn’t get a retirement pension and he struggled with Medicare supplemental, covering the cost.”

    Ramirez’s newly redrawn Illinois congressional district is nearly 50% Latino and heavily Democratic, spanning from Chicago’s Northwest side into the suburbs, according to CNN affiliate WLS. She won more than 66% of the vote in the general election, defeating Republican mortgage company executive Justin Burau.

    After Ramirez’s election, her background landed her on many lists of firsts. She will be the first Latina elected to Congress from the Midwest.

    She’s also helped set another record as part of the largest number of Latinos ever in the House of Representatives.

    There’s another notable detail about her background that Ramirez has pointed to regularly in interviews since her election: She has a “mixed-status family.”

    More than 22 million people in the United States live in mixed-status families, according to immigrant advocacy group fwd.us, meaning at least one family member is an undocumented immigrant and others are US citizens, green card holders or other lawful temporary immigrants. But it’s rare to hear a member of Congress use the term to describe themselves.

    Because of her family’s experience, Ramirez knows many of the people who supported her candidacy see her as a voice who will speak out for them, and for so many immigrants who are in the shadows and rarely heard.

    Ramirez married Boris Hernandez in October 2020. They met earlier that year in what she describes as “one of those pandemic loves.”

    Delia Ramirez, left, with her husband, Boris Hernandez, center, and Ramirez's mother.

    She’s best friends with his cousin. Hernandez is originally from the same town in Guatemala as her parents. He came to the United States when he was 14. And for years, like hundreds of thousands of other people, he’s relied on the Obama-era program known as DACA, short for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which granted certain young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children work permits and protection from deportation.

    On her campaign website and social media feeds, Ramirez has shared photos of Hernandez. And she’s invoked her husband’s story in recent speeches and conversations with constituents.

    Hernandez often stood by her side at campaign events. He occasionally took photos, too (he’s a photographer, in addition to also having worked in nonprofits and early childhood development). He accompanied Ramirez as she voted on Election Day, even though he couldn’t cast a ballot.

    Ramirez acknowledges that she’s privileged compared to many loved ones of DACA recipients. She’s a US citizen, and because of that, Hernandez has a pathway to citizenship no matter what Congress decides. But still, she says, they could end up in a precarious position.

    If a federal judge’s ruling ends DACA – something many immigrant rights advocates warn is likely to happen in the next year – and her husband’s paperwork to adjust his immigration status is pending, Ramirez knows she could have a lot more to worry about in addition to her busy schedule as a first-term congresswoman.

    “I’m going to be fighting to keep my husband here,” she says, “and I’m a member of Congress. …. What happens to the other 2 million (undocumented immigrants that the DREAM Act would protect)? What happens to his brother? What happens to my best friend from high school? What happens to all of them who have no pathway, who don’t have a citizen husband or wife or partner?”

    Ramirez says that question keeps her up at night.

    Standing beside Ramirez outside the Capitol on that morning in December, Congressman-elect Robert Garcia of California praises her for bringing the group of freshmen lawmakers together even before they’ve taken office.

    “She’s been leading on issues of immigration, on DACA for Dreamers, to ensure that our country’s taking care of those who really need our help,” Garcia says.

    Helping Dreamers isn’t the only topic on the agenda during this December news conference; Ramirez and the others are also pushing for extensions to the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, and more funding for early childhood education programs.

    In her interview with CNN, Ramirez said her plans to fight for policies that help immigrants extend beyond immigration reform. One key issue she wants to work on while in office: housing, an area that she says is critically important to immigrant families and working-class families in general.

    Ramirez ascends a staircase at the US Capitol on November 18, 2022.

    The progressive policies she champions, she says, would benefit immigrants and US citizens alike. “It’s an ‘and,’” she says, “not an ‘or.’”

    Ramirez’s voice cracks with emotion as the news conference ends and she makes her closing argument.

    “It is time to deliver for our Dreamers,” she says. “It is time for Boris Hernandez to finally have a pathway to citizenship.”

    Ramirez says she feels overwhelmed by gratitude that her constituents have given her this chance to represent them, and a strong sense of urgency to deliver the results she knows so many people desperately need.

    Weeks later, the 117th Congress adjourned without taking most of the steps Ramirez and her fellow incoming freshmen had been pushing for.

    And with the balance of power shifting, she knows the battles to come will be even tougher. But for Ramirez, the words she proudly proclaimed in that first news conference outside the Capitol still hold true. She and other new members of the House Progressive Caucus have only just begun to make their voices heard.

    “We’re rooted,” she says, “and we are ready to help with this fight. … Let’s get to work.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Guns temporarily banned from Brazil’s capital ahead of Lula da Silva’s inauguration | CNN

    Guns temporarily banned from Brazil’s capital ahead of Lula da Silva’s inauguration | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Brazilian Supreme Court judge on Wednesday issued a four-day ban on carrying firearms in the capital as a precautionary measure ahead of the January 1 inauguration of President-elect Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva.

    In his ruling that temporarily suspends the licenses of registered gun owners, Judge Alexandre de Moraes wrote that “terrorist groups financed by shameless magnates” have been committing crimes against the rule of law in recent weeks, which is why public safety had to be made secure via a temporary firearms ban.

    If a registered gun owner is caught in Brasilia with a firearm in those four days, they can be prosecuted for illegally carrying a weapon, according to the ruling.

    Lula da Silva’s team had requested a ban on firearms at the inauguration days after police arrested a man on suspicion of planting and possessing explosive devices at Brasilia International Airport.

    The suspect, identified as 54-year-old gas station manager George Washington de Oliveira Sousa, is a supporter of incumbent President Jair Bolsonaro and told the police in a statement, seen by CNN, that he intended to “create chaos” so as to prevent Lula da Silva from taking office again in January.

    The firearms ban was to start on Wednesday at 6 p.m. local time (4 p.m. ET) and will run through the end of Sunday. It will not apply to active members of the armed forces, policemen and private security guards, Moraes wrote.

    Even though Bolsonaro’s administration has said it is cooperating with the transition of power, the far-right leader has stopped short of explicitly conceding his election loss on October 30. In protest, thousands of his supporters have gathered at military barracks across the country, asking the army to step in as they claim, with no evidence, that the election was stolen.

    According to the police statement, Sousa arrived in Brasilia from his home state of Para on October 12 to join other Bolsonaro supporters, who were camped in front of the Armed Forces headquarters in the city.

    Sousa said he was inspired by President Bolsonaro to spend over $30,000 to purchase the guns and ammunition, according to his statement. CNN has reached out to Bolsonaro for comment.

    Violence has flared in the country ahead of Lula da Silva’s inauguration.

    In mid-December, protesters clashed with police in the capital Brasilia as they attempted to break into a federal police building following the arrest of an outspoken Bolsonaro supporter.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump tax returns to be released by House panel on Friday | CNN Politics

    Trump tax returns to be released by House panel on Friday | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The House Ways and Means Committee will release former President Donald Trump’s tax returns Friday morning, a source familiar confirmed to CNN.

    The returns will be placed into the congressional record on Friday morning during a House pro forma session. That pro forma session will occur around 9 a.m. ET on Friday. There will also be a formal announcement Friday from the committee.

    The highly anticipated release comes after the panel last week asserted that the IRS failed to properly audit the former president’s taxes while he was in office.

    The committee released a report that detailed six years’ worth of the former president’s tax returns, including his claims of massive annual losses that significantly reduced his tax burden.

    Chairman Richard Neal and fellow Democrats have said that the records they obtained showed that the presidential audit program failed to work as intended. Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat, charged that the complete required audit of Trump’s taxes “did not occur,” as his returns were only subjected to the mandatory audit once, in 2019, after Democrats inquired.

    The committee also released a supplemental report from the Joint Committee on Taxation that included details on Trump’s tax returns from 2015 to 2020, ahead of the planned release of the returns themselves.

    The release of Trump’s tax returns marks the conclusion of a nearly four-year legal battle House Democrats waged against the former president after they took control of the House in 2019.

    The audit program was important to Democrats because it was the justification they used to obtain the returns in the first place – but the Democratic pursuit was also tied in part to long-held suspicions about Trump’s taxes after he bucked the norm and refused to release his returns as a candidate and while in office.

    This story is breaking and has been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • This is how your government works now | CNN Politics

    This is how your government works now | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The annual dash to fund the government is starting to sound like a bad Christmas carol: 12 spending bills, $1.7 trillion, 4,000-plus pages, a single massive end-of-year vote and a lifeline for the lobster industry.

    This is the bizarre way your government works. Rather than pass spending bills in regular order or throughout the year, the leaders on Capitol Hill punt on the process until the last possible moment when it’s vote “yes” or shut down the government.

    Democrats are the ringleaders this year, but next year it will be Republicans in charge of the House and they’ll have to either make good on pledges never to do it this way again or we’ll find members of Congress and senators right back here again, aching to be home for the holidays rather than voting on things they should have done earlier in the year.

    The Senate passed the massive year-long funding bill Thursday and is waiting for the House to do the same before it can go to President Joe Biden’s desk. But, having been down this road before, senators also tried to buy a little extra time by also clearing on Thursday afternoon a bill to extend the government funding deadline by one week, to December 30. The House is expected to do the same on Friday before voting on the broader funding bill.

    House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, however, could draw out the last-minute work with a lament on the House floor, known as a “magic minute,” which allows party leaders to speak as long as they want. The California Republican, who’s hoping to become speaker in the new year, has promised not to let government funding work this way.

    Recent memory is littered with such threats. President Donald Trump promised to veto any “omnibus” bill, endured a government shutdown and then ended up signing versions throughout the rest of his presidency.

    The Senate leaders are proud of the bill.

    “A lot of Sturm und Drang, a lot of ups and downs, but the end, a great result that really helped the American people,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, facing criticism from fellow Republicans about the process, argued he wouldn’t have done it this way.

    “But given the reality of where we stand today, senators have two options this week, just two,” the Kentucky Republican said on the Senate floor. “Give our armed forces the resources and certainty that they need or we will deny it to them.”

    McConnell focused on the defense spending, but there was so much more, including billions earmarked by lawmakers for projects in their home states and districts.

    The return of the earmarking progress, now called Community Project Funding, allows even those lawmakers who will vote against the omnibus to direct spending back home. Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, for example, lists her requests for appropriations on her website. They include taxpayer money for a wastewater plant in Greenwich, a police station in Moriah, a childcare facility in Ogdensburg, among others. But she’s expected to join other House Republicans and oppose the final bill.

    The difficulty for lawmakers like Stefanik and McCarthy will come next year when they face calls among hardline Republicans to refuse raising the debt ceiling without steep federal spending cuts.

    Schumer said he will wait to negotiate with McCarthy on that topic until next year, but had this warning that the House GOP leader must listen to more moderate Republicans.

    “There is a large chunk of Republicans, perhaps a majority in the House and the Senate who are not MAGA,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said. “And this election showed them – I’ve talked to them – that following MAGA is like Thelma and Louise, going over a cliff.”

    The omnibus was not just about spending and keeping the government’s lights on. Lawmakers also threw in some extra packages, mostly bipartisan efforts they didn’t have time to turn to during the year.

    This year those included:

    • Electoral Count Act – a bipartisan effort to avert Insurrection 2.0 and clarify that no, the vice president cannot simply reject election results
    • 401(k)s – much-needed updates to federal rules about retirement accounts
    • Tech – a ban on TikTok from federal government devices
    • Education – higher maximum Pell grant awards
    • Ukraine aid – an additional $45 billion, which will allow the Pentagon to back Ukraine for some time
    • Military and veterans – funding for a 4.6% pay raise for troops and a 22.4% increase in support for VA medical care
    • And that lifeline for the lobster industry.

    There’s a lot more. No human has read the entire thing, which GOP Sen. Rick Scott of Florida pointed out, is “three times the size of the Bible.”

    That doesn’t mean many of its parts, which were cobbled together from committees’ work throughout the year, haven’t been scrutinized.

    But for many reasons – lawmakers are frequently distracted by other matters like judicial nominations, for instance – these things get delayed until the last minute.

    But mostly, it seems like leaders have found it’s easier to ram something through when the vote is framed as must-pass and it’s the only thing standing between them and the holidays.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Manchin says Biden should ask for extension of Trump-era border policy | CNN Politics

    Manchin says Biden should ask for extension of Trump-era border policy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said Sunday that President Joe Biden should ask for an extension of Title 42, a public health authority that was invoked under former President Donald Trump and allows officials to expel migrants encountered at the US-Mexico border.

    “I understand that the president needs to use every bit of power he has as an executive to find a way or ask for an extension,” the West Virginia senator told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

    “The president can basically, I think, ask for that extension. I think his administration is doing that or will do that. I sure hope they do. But we need an extension until we can get a viable answer for this,” Manchin said.

    Title 42 – which has been heavily criticized by public health experts and immigrant advocates – has largely barred asylum at the US-Mexico border, marking an unprecedented departure from traditional protocol.

    But while its origins were in the Trump administration, Title 42 has become a key tool for the Biden White House as it faces mass migration in the Western Hemisphere.

    A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a bid by several Republican-led states to keep Title 42 in force, after a district court struck the controversial border policy down. The Biden administration is set to stop enforcing the rule Wednesday, though the GOP-led states had previously indicated that they’d seek the intervention of the Supreme Court should the appeals court rule against them.

    The states argued in the case that allowing Title 42 to terminate would “cause an enormous disaster at the border” and that a big jump in the number of migrants “will necessarily increase the States’ law enforcement, education, and healthcare costs.”

    In an interview on ABC’s “This Week” that aired Sunday, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said migrants coming across the border untested for Covid-19 or any other illness pose a “public health risk” to the United States.

    “Whether it’s Covid or some other issue, when you have people coming from across the globe, without knowing at all what their health status is, that almost by definition – is a public health risk,” Abbott said, while speaking about the end of Title 42. “There’s every reason to keep that in place.”

    On Saturday, Mayor Oscar Leeser of El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency in response to the surge in migrants arriving in the community in recent days.

    “If the courts do not intervene and put a halt to the removal of title 42, it’s going to be total chaos,” Abbott said.

    Biden administration officials have been bracing for an influx of migrants when the authority lifts. The Department of Homeland Security’s six-pillar plan for the scheduled end of Title 42 includes surging resources to the border, increasing processing efficiency, imposing consequences for unlawful entry, bolstering nonprofit capacity, targeting smugglers and working with international partners.

    Keisha Lance Bottoms, the White House senior adviser for public engagement, on Sunday defended the administration’s preparedness to deal with any influx at the southern border, telling CBS News, “What we are seeing happening is that many people are taking advantage of the fact that Title 42 may go away.”

    “This week, we see many people exploiting migrants, saying, ‘Come now or you lose your ability to come at all.’ And that’s simply not the case,” she said on “Face the Nation.”

    Lance Bottoms called on Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform – something unlikely to happen before Title 42 is lifted or in the next Congress when Republicans will control the House.

    Bottoms would not foreshadow what executive actions Biden could take, in lieu of any larger action from Congress.

    Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla of California said Sunday the federal government should focus on funding humanitarian assistance upon the lifting of Title 42.

    “The state of California is a prime example. More than a billion dollars of state funds going into humanity assistance for asylum seekers when they come to the United States. While they wait for their hearing, do they deserve some basic food and shelter and health screening? Absolutely. Frankly, the federal government should be investing more in that humane treatment of asylum seekers,” Padilla said on ABC’s “This Week.”

    But Manchin stressed Sunday that “we have a crisis at the border. Everyone can see that. I think everyone realizes that something has to be done. [Title] 42 needs to be extended until we can get a really, truly immigration reform.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress has so much to do before Christmas | CNN Politics

    Congress has so much to do before Christmas | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    It is the most productive time of year on Capitol Hill – after the election and before Republicans take over the House of Representatives – when the current Congress tries to cram some of its most vital work into a few short weeks.

    The US government is up against some hard deadlines, a narrow timeline and a whole lot of unfinished business.

    Lawmakers need to avert a government shutdown, authorize Pentagon policy, decide what to do with former President Donald Trump’s tax returns and wrap up the work of the House January 6, 2021, committee.

    If they can find the time, lawmakers could also raise the debt ceiling and safeguard future elections.

    Here’s what to watch for in the twilight of 2022:

    First, the government runs out of authority to spend money on Friday, December 16. The House and Senate will have to act before then to avert a government shutdown.

    Second, the newly elected Congress will be sworn in on January 3. Republicans will then be in charge of the House, and Democrats will have a narrow 51-49 majority in the Senate. Everything resets in the new Congress, and lawmakers will have to start from scratch on anything they don’t finish up this month.

    Rather than pass a dozen funding bills in turn, lawmakers are poised to roll all the spending bills for the massive federal government into one bill that could approach or exceed $1.5 trillion.

    The problem is that they’re still negotiating, and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have not reached an agreement on how much the government can spend, much less the specifics. They’re still $26 billion apart, according to Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama. The most likely current scenario is the House and Senate each pass short-term, one-week funding bills to keep the lights on while they continue to hash out the larger funding bill.

    While officials have emphasized a government shutdown is unlikely, federal agencies have been warned to prepare for one per standard procedure.

    One major looming question is whether Senate Republicans and Democrats can agree on a bill to fund the government for a full year or whether they have to punt to the next Congress. Democrats will want to avoid that fate since the GOP-controlled House will likely insist on spending cuts as soon as it can. Read more in CNN’s full report that includes reporting from Capitol Hill and the White House.

    It’s not yet clear who will lead Republicans in the House next year, much less how they would react to an immediate funding fight if only a short-term spending bill can get through by January.

    The current GOP leader, Kevin McCarthy, does not yet have the votes of many of the most conservative Freedom Caucus Republicans, and he’s being encouraged to take more concrete stands against spending. Finding a funding agreement that can pass through the House and the Senate and get President Joe Biden’s signature gets much more difficult starting January 3.

    In addition to writing checks, Congress authorizes government activity through policy bills, including the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, which authorizes $858 billion in annual defense spending.

    It’s a sprawling endeavor, and this year’s version passed by the House gives members of the military a 4.6% pay raise, gives new support to Ukraine and NATO, and retools US air power and land defense efforts. It also rescinds a Covid-19 vaccine requirement for service members, a move that Biden has opposed.

    Senators are expected to take up the bill this week. It should get bipartisan support, but will also eat up valuable time on the Senate floor, where Democrats also want to push through judicial nominees. Read more about the defense bill.

    One thing Democrats would like to do – but probably, at this point, cannot – is raise the debt ceiling.

    Republicans, particularly in the House, plan to use the nation’s borrowing limit as a bargaining chip to force spending cuts next year. The current debt ceiling of $31.4 trillion will likely be reached in the coming weeks, which means raising it will be a major fight early in 2023.

    How much more does the government spend than it takes in? This is from a CNN Business report Monday: “For fiscal year 2023, which started in October, the government is running a deficit of $336 billion, which is $20 billion narrower than the comparable year-ago period.”

    Republicans will shut down the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, insurrection when they take control in January. GOP lawmakers plan to flip the script and investigate the committee’s activity.

    But first, the committee, which features Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans, will issue its much-anticipated report on December 21. Also look for the committee to recommend the Department of Justice prosecute Trump or members of his inner circle.

    Meanwhile, Jack Smith, the newly appointed special counsel, has been busy ramping up a pair of criminal probes involving the former president, all of which could explode into public view if charges are ultimately brought. Read the latest on Smith’s work.

    Now that the House Ways and Means Committee has six years of Trump’s tax returns, it must figure out what to do with them in just a few weeks.

    There’s probably no time for a thorough review, and Republicans will have little appetite for a Trump tax investigation when they take control of the House.

    Democrats could move to make some of Trump’s tax information public – on top of what was already published by The New York Times in 2020. But there could be a political cost to simply releasing the returns since Democrats obtained them in order to scrutinize IRS audit policy. Read more about Trump’s taxes.

    It’s a bipartisan idea to make some major clarifications to election law and cut down on the possibility of another January 6, 2021. Read here about what’s in the bill, which is specifically designed to guard against Insurrection 2.0.

    But there may be no time to pass the proposal – there are similar but competing versions in the House and Senate. The Senate version, in particular, has bipartisan support. Republicans in the House may not be interested in the legislation once they take control in January.

    If the Electoral Count Act can pass, it could be slipped into that massive spending bill. It hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves, but this could be a good example of lawmakers working together.

    But that’s a very open question, since that massive spending bill has not yet been put together.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • It’s time to review government shutdown plans, federal agencies are formally warned | CNN Politics

    It’s time to review government shutdown plans, federal agencies are formally warned | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    While congressional leaders continue to negotiate a spending deal, the federal government has begun the process of preparing for a potential shutdown, participating in the mandatory but standard process of releasing shutdown guidance to agencies ahead of this Friday’s funding deadline.

    Lawmakers on both sides currently acknowledge they are going to need to pass a week-long stopgap measure to give themselves more time for talks, and officials have emphasized that there is no real likelihood of a government shutdown, but the standard procedure laying out the steps toward bringing non-essential government functions to a halt is underway.

    “One week prior to the expiration of appropriations bills, regardless of whether the enactment of appropriations appears imminent, OMB will communicate with agency senior officials to remind agencies of their responsibilities to review and update orderly shutdown plans, and will share a draft communication template to notify employees of the status of appropriations,” a budget circular document from the Office of Management and Budget states.

    That standard guidance was circulated last Friday, marking seven days before a shutdown could occur absent congressional action.

    Every department and agency has its own set of plans and procedures. Those plans include information on how many employees would get furloughed, which employees are essential and would work without pay (for example, air traffic controllers, Secret Service agents, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory staff), how long it would take to wind down operations in the hours before a shutdown, and which activities would come to a halt.

    It’s not the first time the government has been on the brink of a shutdown, and it has happened on multiple occasions. Recently, the government shut down for 35 days, a record length, from December 2018 to January 2019 amid a congressional stalemate over funding for then-President Donald Trump’s border wall. The government also shut down for three days over deadlock during the Trump administration in January 2018. And in 2013, then-President Barack Obama presided over a 16-day partial government shutdown caused by a dispute over the Affordable Care Act and other budget disagreements.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress faces looming government shutdown deadline at end of the week | CNN Politics

    Congress faces looming government shutdown deadline at end of the week | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers face a Friday at midnight deadline when government funding is set to expire – and the House and Senate will likely have to pass a short-term extension to avert a shutdown at the end of the week, which would give negotiators more time to try to secure a broader full-year funding deal.

    The other major legislative item lawmakers are working to wrap up before the end of the year is the National Defense Authorization Act, the massive annual must-pass defense policy bill. The NDAA is expected to get a vote in the Senate this week and be approved with bipartisan support.

    The House has already approved the measure so once the Senate votes to pass it, the bill can go to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.

    The approaching deadline had members of Congress and their staffers from both parties, as well as Biden administration officials, continuing to slog through negotiations over the weekend to try to get to an agreement on a spending package.

    “This is the time of the year when there’s no weekends for folks who work on appropriations,” one administration official closely involved in the talks told CNN.

    Over the weekend, both Democrats and Republicans were sharing with one another their “bottom lines” on various fronts, and the White House remained publicly optimistic that an agreement could be reached on an omnibus: “There is absolutely still a path and time for a deal.”

    But if Biden administration officials are still keeping their eyes on the ball on Congress ultimately reaching a deal on a government spending deal, there is also real recognition that lawmakers will need an extra few days – perhaps even a week – of cushion to buy themselves more time. That would be achieved through passing a short-term stop-gap measure called a continuing resolution, or a CR.

    Particularly with that in mind, administration officials also continue to maintain that they do not see any real likelihood of a government shutdown.

    Congressional aides acknowledged to CNN that the weekend talks went better than days prior, which is why Democrats have announced they will not introduce their own Democratic-only omnibus plan on Monday. Republicans on Capitol Hill had been reading a threat for Democrats to introduce their own bills as a messaging exercise that would only further divide negotiators, and by avoiding that messaging exercise, Republicans see a sign that Democrats are serious about trying to get to yes.

    For now, a bipartisan deal on government funding remains elusive. Lawmakers have not yet been able to reach a negotiated agreement for a comprehensive, full-year funding package – known on Capitol Hill as an omnibus – amid a dispute between the two parties over how much money should be spent on non-defense, domestic priorities. Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has told reporters the two sides are roughly $26 billion apart.

    Republicans are critical of recent domestic spending by Democrats and argue that measures Democrats have passed while they have been in control both chambers of Congress, like the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill and the sweeping health care and climate bill, are wasteful and will worsen inflation. Democrats counter by saying those measures were necessary to help the country recover from the devastating impact of the pandemic as well as to tackle other critical priorities. And Democrats said that money to respond to Covid, health care and climate should not mean there should be less money next year for government operations and non-defense, domestic spending.

    The impasse over a broader funding deal is likely to force both sides to agree to pass a short-term funding extension – known as a continuing resolution, or CR – before the fast-approaching Friday deadline on Friday.

    The key question will be how long such an extension would last. It could be as short as one week, a timeframe that would keep the pressure dialed up for lawmakers to reach a broader deal, while still allowing more time for negotiations. Or it could extend the shutdown deadline into the next Congress, which will convene on January 3, and when Republicans take control of the House.

    That change in majority in the House would dramatically alter the dynamic for negotiations and likely make it far harder to reach a broader funding deal. Lawmakers could pass a full-year CR if it looks like a bipartisan funding deal can’t be reached, but leaders in both parties hope to avoid that scenario since it would keep spending flat for the Pentagon as well as domestic priorities.

    Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell laid out the GOP position in remarks on the Senate floor Thursday. “Our commander-in-chief and his party have spent huge sums on domestic priorities outside the normal appropriations process without a penny for the Defense Department. Obviously, we won’t allow them to now hijack the government funding process, too, and take our troops hostage for even more liberal spending,” McConnell said.

    Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, outlined the argument for his party in his own floor remarks on Thursday. Republicans, Leahy said, are “demanding steep cuts to programs the American people rely on.”

    Referring to Democratic-passed legislation that Republicans have criticized, Leahy said, “Those bills were meant to get us out of the pandemic, get the nation healthy, and get our economy back on track, and I believe they are accomplishing that goal. They were not meant to fund the basic functions of the American government in fiscal year 2023.”

    While lawmakers continue to negotiate, the federal government has begun the process of preparing for a potential shutdown, participating in the mandatory but standard process of releasing shutdown guidance to agencies ahead of Friday’s funding deadline.

    Officials have emphasized that there is no real likelihood of a government shutdown, but the standard procedure laying out the steps toward bringing non-essential government functions to a halt is underway.

    “One week prior to the expiration of appropriations bills, regardless of whether the enactment of appropriations appears imminent, OMB will communicate with agency senior officials to remind agencies of their responsibilities to review and update orderly shutdown plans, and will share a draft communication template to notify employees of the status of appropriations,” a document from the Office of Management and Budget stated.

    That standard guidance was circulated last Friday, marking seven days before a shutdown could occur absent Congressional action.

    Every department and agency has its own set of plans and procedures. Those plans include information on how many employees would get furloughed, what employees are essential and would work without pay (for example, air traffic controllers, Secret Service agents, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention laboratory staff), how long it would take to wind down operations in the hours before a shutdown, and what activities would come to a halt.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress faces time crunch on government funding and sweeping defense policy bill | CNN Politics

    Congress faces time crunch on government funding and sweeping defense policy bill | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are scrambling to try to fund the government and pass a sweeping defense policy bill before a new Congress is sworn in, but there are signs that both sides have struggled to reach agreement over these key outstanding issues.

    Government funding expires at the end of next week on December 16 – and it appears all but certain that lawmakers will have to pass a short-term extension as they try to reach a broader full-year funding agreement.

    Separately, the House has been expected to take up the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2023 this week, but it’s not yet clear when a vote will take place amid questions over whether certain controversial policy provisions will be included in the legislation – like eliminating a Covid-19 vaccine mandate for the military. Once the House has passed the bill, it would next have be taken up by the Senate.

    Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell warned on Tuesday that rather than passing a full-year funding bill, lawmakers may have to pass a short-term stop-gap measure to kick the can into early next year. This would set up a huge funding fight and create fears of a government shutdown early in the new Congress, when Republicans will take control of the House and would have to cut a deal with Democrats who run the Senate.

    On government funding legislation, McConnell said: “We don’t have agreement to do virtually anything, which can only leave us with the option of a short-term CR into early next year,” referring to a short-term bill known as a continuing resolution.

    He added: “We don’t even have an overall agreement on how much we’re going to spend, and we’re running out of time.”

    Despite the threat of a stop-gap, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer reiterated on Tuesday that senators are “working very hard” to reach a deal to fully fund the government before the upcoming deadline, but acknowledged that “there’s a lot of negotiating left to do.”

    Senate Republican Whip John Thune signaled Tuesday that he doesn’t have a “high level of confidence” both parties will be able to reach a deal on an omnibus government funding bill, as time is running short to pass that massive bill.

    “I don’t have a high level of confidence because I’m looking at the calendar,” the South Dakota Republican said. “It’ll be a very heavy lift, but who knows? I guess I would say is, you know, bring your Yuletide carols and all that stuff here because we may be singing to each other.”

    McConnell complained Tuesday that Democrats were preventing quick passage of the National Defense Authorization Act by trying to add unrelated items at the last minute that Republicans oppose.

    “Senate Democrats are still obstructing efforts to close out the NDAA by trying to jam in unrelated items with no relationship whatsoever to defense. We’re talking about a grab bag of miscellaneous pet priorities,” McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.

    “My colleagues across the aisle need to cut their unrelated hostage taking and put a bipartisan NDAA on the floor,” he added.

    Lawmakers released text of an agreement for the NDAA Tuesday night.

    The summary, released by the Senate Armed Services Committee, said it “requires the Secretary of Defense to rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19.”

    CNN reported earlier this week that the mandate was likely to be rescinded as part of the defense policy bill.

    In a tweeted statement Tuesday night, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy said that “the end of President Biden’s military COVID vaccine mandate is a victory for our military and for common sense.”

    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, said earlier Tuesday that the House was considering eliminating the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for military members in order to gather enough Republican votes to pass the annual defense authorization. Republicans have said they will not support the NDAA with the vaccine mandate in place.

    Hoyer said at his weekly pen and pad with reporters that Democrats were not “willing” to give up the mandate, but that a compromise is required to get the NDAA across the finish line.

    “We’re not willing to give it up. This is not a question of will; it’s a question of how can we get something done? We have a very close vote in the Senate, very close vote in the House. And you just don’t get everything you want,” he said.

    Thune said of the defense policy bill, “I think the ransom the Democrats wanted for stripping the vaccine mandate is a whole bunch of things to include the permitting reform, but also some other things that are just going to be non-starters on our side, and I don’t think we’re going to get in the business of, you know, allowing them to hold us hostage.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link