ReportWire

Tag: United States House of Representatives

  • North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore confirms he won’t seek another term leading the chamber

    North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore confirms he won’t seek another term leading the chamber

    RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore confirmed on Friday that his record fifth two-year term presiding over the chamber will be his last, saying legislative colleagues have known about his decision going back a year.

    Moore, a Cleveland County Republican, has served in the House since 2003 and was first elected speaker in 2015 while succeeding now-U.S. Sen. Thom Tillis at the job.

    He’s helped push a conservative fiscal and social agenda through the General Assembly with Senate leader Phil Berger and built GOP seat margins back to veto-proof majorities.

    The U.S. House majority is in play next year after an anemic showing by Republicans in the midterm elections and a surprise Supreme Court ruling that will likely bring two new safely Democratic districts.

    House Republicans in North Carolina are pitching an overhaul of public education laws in the final days of the session that would take power away from superintendents and the State Board of Education while giving parents more control.

    Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is backing off his insistence on money for a new private-school funding program, giving Pennsylvania’s Democratic-controlled House the opening to pass a new state spending plan after a days-long stalemate.

    Republicans who control Pennsylvania’s Senate are advancing spending legislation ahead of Saturday’s start of a new fiscal year, but they lack agreement with the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.

    Moore, 52, said in an interview that he told fellow House Republican leaders in spring 2022 about his plans not to run for speaker after the 2023-24 term ends. And he said he told the current GOP membership the same thing last fall when they assembled their slate of candidates for chamber positions.

    “All of my caucus members knew — I made it clear that this is my last term as speaker,” Moore said, adding that he would serve out his term through the end of 2024. A successful run for speaker by any Republican in 2025 would be all but contingent on the GOP retaining a seat majority.

    Leading up to the 2022 elections, Moore had weighed running for a congressional seat in a potential open district west of Charlotte, but he declined. Then-U.S. Rep. Madison Cawthorn initially announced he wanted to run in that region. The congressional lines ultimately had to be redrawn last year and Cawthorn ran and lost in another mountain-area district.

    The General Assembly will again redraw the state’s 14 U.S. House districts later this year in time for the 2024 elections, raising the potential for Moore to run for Congress now.

    When asked Friday about his future, Moore didn’t completely reject running for his state House seat again in 2024. Some previous speakers over the past 30 years have remained rank-and-file members of the legislature.

    Still, Moore said that he would be “looking at potentially other offices or other options.”

    With his election as speaker in January, the Kings Mountain attorney made history by breaking a tie with two former speakers who had served four two-year terms: Democratic Rep. Liston Ramsey of Madison County and Rep. Jim Black of Mecklenburg County.

    Rep. Jason Saine, a Lincoln County Republican and top budget writer, said Friday that Moore had mentioned not running for speaker in 2025 on “multiple occasions” to the GOP caucus.

    Moore last month was the subject of a lawsuit by a man who alleged Moore broke up his marriage by having an affair with his wife. Moore, who is divorced, defended his actions and vehemently rejected allegations in the lawsuit. Attorneys for Moore and the husband announced last week the matter was resolved, and the husband ended the lawsuit July 5, according to a state courts website.

    Saine, who has been mentioned as one of many on a list of potential successors to Moore as speaker, said Moore’s decision was made long ago and had no connection to the legal matter.

    “No one is pushing the speaker out,” Saine said in a text message. “He’s been very open and honest that he would not seek another term as our speaker.”

    Source link

  • Defense bill’s passage threatened by abortion amendment, limits on Ukraine funding

    Defense bill’s passage threatened by abortion amendment, limits on Ukraine funding

    Washington — Dozens of controversial amendments could complicate the House’s passage of the annual National Defense Authorization Act by alienating Democratic support. 

    The most hot-button amendment would bar the Pentagon from paying for and reimbursing expenses related to abortion services. 

    House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark told CBS News that Democrats would “oppose the bill” if it contains the amendment on the abortion policy, throwing its passage in doubt.

    In the Senate, GOP Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville has been blocking military nominations and promotions over the military abortion policy, which covers certain abortion-related travel expenses for service members based in states with restrictive reproductive healthcare laws. Tuberville is exercising the hold until the Pentagon or new legislation changes the policy.

    Clark said Democrats would also “fight” on the floor against other “culture war” amendments to the defense bill. They include cutting diversity, equity and inclusion offices; prohibiting the use of federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion training.

    There are also Republicans who want to add language prohibiting the sale or transfer of cluster munitions to Ukraine; and cutting Ukraine funding by $300 million. However, one senior House Armed Services Committee member told CBS News he projects approximately 30 Republican House members would support stripping the aid, far short of the number needed to do so.

    The top Democrat on the House Armed Services committee, Washington Rep. Adam Smith, told CBS News on Tuesday that Republican leadership would likely need Democratic votes to pass the defense bill, because he expected a “chunk” of Republicans to oppose it over the changes to Ukraine funding. Republicans can only afford to lose four votes without Democratic help.

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused Republicans of jeopardizing its passage. 

    “It’s outrageous that this is what Republicans are doing,” Jeffries said. “With the defense bill, it should be about our national security.”

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said he is hopeful the defense bill will pass by Friday with bipartisan support. McCarthy said he supported the abortion amendment introduced by Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson, even as some moderate members of his party have voiced concern.  

    Republican Rep. Nick LaLota, a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the amendments should be separate from the defense bill. 

    “Congress must pass the NDAA,” LaLota tweeted Thursday. “The amendments which would cause the NDAA to fail put our military’s lethality at risk and should be debated outside of the NDAA. We cannot play games with our soldiers’ lives, pay, or military readiness.” 

    Scott MacFarlane and Nikole Killion contributed reporting. 

    Source link

  • Billions in NIH grants could be jeopardized by appointments snafu, Republicans say

    Billions in NIH grants could be jeopardized by appointments snafu, Republicans say

    The Biden administration allegedly failed to correctly reappoint more than a dozen top-ranking National Institutes of Health leaders, House Republicans say, raising questions about the legality of billions in federal grants doled out by those officials over the last year. 

    Their claim, detailed Friday in a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, obtained by CBS News, follows a monthslong probe led by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the Republican chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, into vacancies at the agency.

    “The failure to reappoint the above NIH IC Directors jeopardizes the legal validity of more than $25 billion in federal biomedical research grants made in 2022 alone,” the committee wrote.

    The Biden administration rebutted the GOP-led committee’s accusations that it ran afoul of the law. An HHS official familiar with the matter, who responded on the condition of anonymity, said the committee was misrepresenting the requirements.

    The committee’s letter stems from the 21st Century Cures Act passed in 2016, which says that directors atop the institutes and centers within the NIH have five-year term limits before they must be reappointed. 

    When the term limits of 14 of these officials came due at the end of 2021, the Biden administration says the NIH director correctly reappointed them. The law says that they must be “appointed by the Secretary, acting through the Director of the National Institutes of Health.”

    The committee says that the way those officials were reappointed falls short of what the law demands from Becerra himself.

    “Specifically, it requires the Secretary of HHS to reappoint NIH IC Directors, including those who were serving at the time of the law’s enactment when their five-year terms expired on December 12, 2021,” the letter stated.

    After the committee’s probe was launched, Becerra signed affidavits the department says retroactively ratified and adopted the appointments. 

    While the Biden administration thinks its grants remain on sound footing, the HHS official said Becerra’s affidavits were intended to bolster defenses against challenges that might upend them in the courts.  

    The committee questioned the legality of that move. Among the issues it flagged were the retirements of Dr. Anthony Fauci, formerly head of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Roger Glass, who had headed the Fogarty International Center. Both stepped down months before Becerra signed the affidavits in June.

    “HHS and the NIH should have known within days of receiving the Committee’s March 14, 2022, letter that the reappointments as legally required had not occurred. Rather than addressing the problem in consultation with the Committee, HHS and the NIH repeatedly misled the Committee,” the committee wrote of its  monthslong back-and-forth with the department. 

    The HHS official insisted that the department had cooperated with the committee’s questions in good faith, voluntarily producing documents and responses to the inquiry.

    National Institutes of Health building in Bethesda, Maryland
    National Institutes of Health James Shannon building on the campus of NIH in Bethesda, Maryland.

    AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais


    Thousands of researchers compete every year for NIH funding, which support a variety of projects ranging from fundamental laboratory research to human clinical trials. 

    Asked how those programs might be affected, a committee aide told CBS News, “It is unclear what the impact will be, but it creates unnecessary uncertainty and opens the door to legal challenges, While we are unaware of any other Cabinet Secretaries committing such egregious process violations, a similar case involving SEC Administrative Law Judges required the decisions made by improperly appointed officials be relitigated in front of a legally appointed judge.”

    The committee says its probe into the issue is continuing and prompted a renewed round of questions to the department, as well as the possibility of demanding interviews from HHS and NIH officials.  

    Its letter to Becerra warned that “intentional misstatements or omissions” may constitute “federal criminal violations under 18 USC 1001,” adding that it serves as a formal request to preserve “all existing and future records.”

    “Institute directors with discretion to award billions or even hundreds of millions in research funding are, by definition, exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States. As such, institute directors are the quintessential ‘inferior officers,’” a former senior HHS official told CBS News. 

    “The Secretary cannot delegate his or her constitutional authority to appoint inferior officers. It is my understanding that prior administrations of both parties zealously guarded the appointments process and took care to ensure that inferior officers were properly appointed,” said the former senior official, who previously served in the Bush, Reagan and Trump administrations.

    Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
    From left: Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Dr. Richard Hodes, director of the National Institute on Agingl and Dr. Francis Collins, then director of the National Institutes of Health, testify at a Senate committee hearing on Aug. 23, 2018.

    Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call


    The Republican-led committee’s letter comes as the Biden administration has yet to fill key vacancies in the NIH leadership. 

    The agency has been without a director since December 2021, when Dr. Francis Collins stepped down from his post. 

    In May, President Biden announced he planned to nominate Dr. Monica Bertagnolli — currently head of the NIH’s National Cancer Institute — to fill the role.

    So far, Bertagnolli’s nomination is awaiting Senate confirmation. 

    Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, chair of the panel charged with signing off on HHS nominees, has vowed not to move forward with the nomination without new pledges from the Biden administration on drug prices. 

    “I will oppose all nominations until we have a very clear strategy on the part of the government … as to how we’re going to lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders told The Washington Post last month.

    Source link

  • Lisa Blunt Rochester discusses U.S. Senate bid

    Lisa Blunt Rochester discusses U.S. Senate bid

    Lisa Blunt Rochester discusses U.S. Senate bid – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Delaware has never elected a Black woman to the Senate. The state’s lone House member, Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester, is looking to change that. CBS News congressional correspondent Nikole Killion spoke with Rochester about her campaign’s potential to make history.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • In rowdy scene, House censures Rep. Adam Schiff over Trump-Russia investigations

    In rowdy scene, House censures Rep. Adam Schiff over Trump-Russia investigations

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Wednesday to censure California Rep. Adam Schiff for comments he made several years ago about investigations into Donald Trump’s ties to Russia, rebuking the Democrat and frequent critic of the former president along party lines.

    Schiff becomes the 25th House lawmaker to be censured. He was defiant ahead of the vote, saying he will wear the formal disapproval as a “badge of honor” and charging his GOP colleagues of doing the former president’s bidding.

    “I will not yield,” Schiff, who is running for the Senate in his home state, said during debate over the measure. “Not one inch.”

    When it was time for Schiff to come to the front of the chamber to be formally censured, immediately after the vote, the normally solemn ceremony turned into more of a celebratory atmosphere. Dozens of Democrats crowded to the front, clapping and cheering for Schiff and patting him on the back. They chanted “No!,” “Shame!” and “Adam! Adam!”

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., read the resolution out loud, as is tradition after a censure. But he only read part of the document before leaving the chamber as Democrats heckled and interrupted him.

    “Censure all of us,” one Democrat yelled.

    Schiff, the former Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, has long been a top Republican political target. Soon after taking back the majority this year, Republicans blocked him from sitting on the intelligence panel.

    More than 20 Republicans voted with Democrats last week to block the censure resolution, but they changed their votes this week after the measure’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, removed a provision that could have fined Schiff $16 million if the House Ethics Committee determined he lied. Several of the Republicans who voted to block the resolution last week said they opposed fining a member of Congress in that manner.

    The final vote on Wednesday was 213-209 along party lines, with a handful of members voting present.

    The revised resolution says Schiff held positions of power during Trump’s presidency and “abused this trust by saying there was evidence of collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia.” Schiff was one of the most outspoken critics of the former president as both the Justice Department and the Republican-led House launched investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia in 2017. Both investigations concluded that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential election but neither found evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

    “Representative Schiff purposely deceived his Committee, Congress, and the American people,” the resolution said.

    The House has only censured two other lawmakers in the last 20 years. Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was censured in 2021 for tweeting an animated video that depicted him striking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., with a sword. Former Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York was censured in 2010 for serious financial and campaign misconduct.

    The censure itself carries no practical effect, except to provide a historic footnote that marks a lawmaker’s career. But the GOP resolution would also launch an ethics investigation into Schiff’s conduct.

    While Schiff did not initiate the 2017 congressional investigation into Trump’s Russia ties — then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican who later became one of Trump’s most ardent defenders, started it — Republicans arguing in favor of his censure Wednesday blamed him for what they said was the fallout of that probe, and of the separate investigation started that same year by Trump’s own Justice Department.

    Luna said that Schiff’s comments that there was evidence against Trump “ripped apart American families across the country” and that he was “permanently destroying family relationships.” Several blamed him for the more than $30 million spent by then-special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the Justice Department probe.

    Schiff said the censure resolution “would accuse me of omnipotence, the leader of some a vast Deep State conspiracy, and of course, it is nonsense.”

    Democrats aggressively defended their colleague. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who led Trump’s second impeachment, called the effort an “embarrassing revenge tour on behalf of Donald Trump.”

    Mueller, who led the two-year Justice Department investigation, determined that Russia intervened on the campaign’s behalf and that Trump’s campaign welcomed the help. But Mueller’s team did not find that the campaign conspired to sway the election, and the Justice Department did not recommend any criminal charges.

    The House intelligence committee probe launched by Nunes similarly found that Russia intervened in the election but that there was no evidence of a criminal conspiracy. Schiff was the top Democrat on the panel at the time.

    Schiff said last week that the censure resolution was “red meat” that McCarthy was throwing to his conference amid squabbles over government spending. Republicans are trying to show their fealty to Trump, Schiff said.

    He said he warned the country during impeachment proceedings three years ago that Trump “would go on to do worse. And of course he did worse in the form of a violent attack on the Capitol.”

    After Democrats won the House majority in 2018, the House impeached Trump for abuse of power after he threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine and urged the country’s president to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden. Schiff was the lead House prosecutor making the case for conviction to the Senate, arguing repeatedly that “right matters.” The Republican-led chamber ultimately acquitted him.

    Trump was impeached a second time a year later, after he had left office, for his role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol. The Senate again acquitted Trump.

    In the censure resolution against Schiff, Luna also cited a report released in May from special counsel John Durham that found that the FBI rushed into its investigation of Trump’s campaign and relied too much on raw and unconfirmed intelligence.

    Durham — who testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday — said investigators repeatedly relied on “confirmation bias,” ignoring or rationalizing away evidence that undercut their premise of a Trump-Russia conspiracy as they pushed the probe forward. But he did not allege that political bias or partisanship were guiding factors for the FBI’s actions.

    In the hours before the vote, Schiff’s campaign sent out a fundraising email that said Luna had introduced “yet ANOTHER resolution to censure me.”

    “The vote and debate will happen imminently,” the email read, asking recipients to donate to help him fight back. “Once more, I have to be on the House floor to listen as MAGA Republicans push false and defamatory lies about me.”

    Democrats argued that the House censure resolution is an effort to distract from Trump’s recent indictment on federal charges of hoarding classified documents — several of which dealt with sensitive national security matters — and attempting to conceal them. House Republicans, most of whom are loyal to Trump, say the indictment is more evidence that the government is conspiring against the former president.

    “This is not a serious resolution,” said Rep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., but political theater to “distract from Donald Trump’s history of transgressions and now indictments.”

    Source link

  • House advances resolution to censure Schiff after dropping $16 million fine

    House advances resolution to censure Schiff after dropping $16 million fine

    Washington — A revived GOP-led effort to censure Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff for his role in congressional investigations of former President Donald Trump moved ahead on Wednesday, one week after a similar measure failed.

    Last week, 20 Republicans joined Democrats in voting to table the earlier resolution, blocking that effort to publicly reprimand him. Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, an ardent Trump supporter, then tweaked the measure to remove a potential $16 million fine for Schiff that several Republicans considered unconstitutional. 

    Democrats tried to table the new resolution on Wednesday, but the vote failed 208 to 218, with all Republicans voting to advance the measure. The motion to table needed a simple majority to pass.

    Luna introduced the resolution as privileged, fast-tracking its consideration under House rules. The chamber immediately began debating the matter after the vote on the motion to table, teeing up a vote on final passage as early as Wednesday evening.

    “As chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff launched an all out political campaign built on baseless distortions against a sitting U.S. president at the expense of every single citizen in this country and the honor of the House of Representatives,” Luna said Wednesday, calling the resolution “a clear vote between right and wrong.” 

    Censure is essentially a formal public reprimand by the House to punish misconduct that falls short of warranting expulsion. The censured member typically must stand on the House floor as the resolution detailing his or her offenses is read aloud.

    Twenty-four House lawmakers have been censured in U.S. history, most recently in 2021, when GOP Rep. Paul Gosar was censured for tweeting a video depicting violence against President Biden and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

    The revised resolution calls for the House Ethics Committee to investigate Schiff, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee and current candidate for Senate in California, for his alleged “falsehoods, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information.” 

    It claims Schiff “abused” the public’s trust “by alleging he had evidence of collusion” between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia and also accuses him of acting “dishonestly and dishonorably.” 

    Schiff and Democrats have framed the effort to censure him as retaliation for his prominent role in Trump’s first impeachment, and said it is meant to distract from the federal indictment alleging Trump hid classified documents and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them. Schiff has been highly critical of Trump and served as the House’s lead prosecutor in his first impeachment trial. 

    “To my Republican colleagues who introduced this resolution, I thank you,” Schiff said Wednesday. “You honor me with your enmity. You flatter me with this falsehood. You, who are the authors of a big lie about the last election, must condemn the truth-tellers and I stand proudly before you. Your words tell me that I have been effective in the defense of our democracy and I am grateful.” 

    Schiff said he will wear the “partisan vote as a badge of honor.” 

    Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said the vote shows the Republican Party has become “an authoritarian cult of personality” after Trump said the Republicans who voted to table the resolution last week should face primary challengers. 

    “The GOP simply has no ideas for our economy, no ideas for our country, and no ideas for our people,” Raskin said. “But is on an embarrassing revenge tour on behalf of Donald Trump, who treats them like a ventriloquist dummy.” 

    Source link

  • House Democrats release wave of bank reform bills

    House Democrats release wave of bank reform bills

    WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Wednesday will release a slate of reform bills in response to the recent bank failures that triggered the worst crisis for the sector since 2008.

    Members of the House Financial Services Committee, led by ranking member Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., are seeking an expansion to federal regulatory authorities and more oversight for bank executives, including clawbacks on compensation, fines and the closure of loopholes that allowed some banks to escape standards established under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act.

    The committee has closely scrutinized the actions of the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, and other federal regulators along with executives of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank leading up to and in the aftermath of the banks’ collapse.

    Waters urged committee Republicans to follow the lead of the Senate Banking Committee and work with Democrats to advance bipartisan legislation to protect the economy from future harm.

    “The failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank make clear that it is past time for legislation aimed at strengthening the safety and soundness of our banking system and enhancing bank executive accountability,” she said.

    Here are the bills to be considered:

    Failed Bank Executives Accountability and Consequences Act: This bill would expand regulatory authority on compensation clawbacks, fines and banning executives who contribute to a bank’s failure from future work in the industry. President Joe Biden called for these actions shortly after the FDIC took over SVB and Signature Bank in March. The bill is cosponsored by Waters and fellow Democratic Reps. Nydia Velazquez, of New York; Brad Sherman and Juan Vargas, both of California; David Scott, of Georgia; Al Green and Sylvia Garcia of Texas; Emanuel Cleaver, of Missouri; Joyce Beatty and Steven Horsford, both of Ohio; and Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan. Some Republicans have expressed support for this act, which is similar to the bipartisan bill the Senate Banking Committee is considering.

    Incentivizing Safe and Sound Banking Act: This measure would expand regulators’ authority to prohibit stock sales for executives when banks are issued cease-and-desist orders for violating the law. It would also automatically restrict stock sales by senior executives of banks that receive poor exam ratings or are out of compliance with supervisory citations. The bill would have prevented SVB bank executives from cashing out after repeated warnings by regulators, according to Democrats. It is cosponsored by Waters, Velazquez, Sherman, Green, Cleaver, Beatty, Horsford and Tlaib.

    Closing the Enhanced Prudential Standards Loophole Act: This will aim to close loopholes surrounding the Dodd-Frank Act’s enhanced prudential standards for banks that do not have a bank holding company. Neither Signature Bank nor SVB had a bank holding company before they collapsed. The bill would ensure that large banks with a size, complexity and risk equal to that of big banks with holding companies will be subject to similar enhanced capital, liquidity, stress testing, resolution planning and other related requirements. It is cosponsored by Waters, Velazquez, Sherman, Green, Cleaver, Beatty, Vargas, Garcia and Tlaib.

    H.R. 4204, Shielding Community Banks from Systemic Risk Assessments Act: This measure would permanently exempt banks with less than $5 billion in total assets from special assessments the FDIC collects when a systemic risk exception is triggered, which was done to protect depositors at Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The FDIC would be allowed to set a higher threshold while requiring a minimal impact on banks with between $5 billion and $50 billion in total assets. It is sponsored by Green.

    H.R. 4062, Chief Risk Officer Enforcement and Accountability Act: This measure would have federal regulators require large banks to have a chief risk officer. Banks would also have to notify federal and state regulators of a CRO vacancy within 24 hours and provide a hiring plan within seven days. After 60 days, if the CRO position remains vacant, the bank must notify the public and be subject to an automatic cap on asset growth until the job is filled. The bill is cosponsored by Sherman, Green, and fellow Democratic Reps. Sean Casten, of Illinois; Josh Gottheimer, of New Jersey; Ritchie Torres, of New York; and Wiley Nickel, of North Carolina.

    H.R. 3914, Failing Bank Acquisition Fairness Act: This bill would have the FDIC only consider bids from megabanks with more than 10% of total deposits if no other institutions meet the least-cost test. This would ensure smaller banks have a chance to purchase failed banks, according to Democrats. It is sponsored by Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass.

    H.R. 3992, Effective Bank Regulation Act: This legislation would require regulators to expand stress testing requirements. Instead of two stress test scenarios, the bill would require five. It would also ensure that the Federal Reserve does stress tests for situations when interest rates are rising or falling. It is sponsored by Sherman.

    H.R. 4116, Systemic Risk Authority Transparency Act: This bill would require regulators and the watchdog Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to produce the same kind of post-failure reports that the Federal Reserve, FDIC and GAO did after Silicon Valley Bank’s and Signature Bank’s failure. Initial reports would be required within 60 days and comprehensive reports within 180 days. It would be applicable to any use of the systemic risk exception of the FDIC’s least cost resolution test. The bill is sponsored by Green.

    H.R. 4200, Fostering Accountability in Remuneration Fund Act of 2023, or FAIR Fund Act: The legislation would require big financial institutions to cover fines incurred after a failure and/or executive conduct through a deferred compensation pool that would be funded with a portion of senior executive compensation. The pool would get paid out between two and eight years, depending on the size of the institution. The bill is sponsored by Tlaib.

    Stopping Bonuses for Unsafe and Unsound Banking Act: This measure would freeze bonuses for executives of any large bank that doesn’t submit an acceptable remediation plan for what’s known as a Matter Requiring Immediate Attention, or MRIA, or a similar citation from bank supervisors by a regulator-set deadline. It is sponsored by Brittany Pettersen, D-Colo.

    Bank Safety Act: Large banks would be prevented from opting out of the requirement to recognize Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, or AOCI, in regulatory capital under this bill. AOCI reflects the kind of unrealized losses in SVB’s securities portfolio. It is sponsored by Sherman.

    Correction: This story was updated to reflect that the bills are being released Wednesday.

    Source link

  • Risk of government shutdown increases as GOP lawmakers target cuts

    Risk of government shutdown increases as GOP lawmakers target cuts

    Risk of government shutdown increases as GOP lawmakers target cuts – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    House Republicans are pushing for cuts to government funding, raising the risk of a possible government shutdown. The House Appropriations Committee adopted spending targets for the next fiscal year below what was agreed on in the debt ceiling deal. CBS News congressional correspondent Scott MacFarlane reports from Capitol Hill.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    Source link

  • Underestimated McCarthy emerges from debt deal empowered as speaker, still threatened by far right

    Underestimated McCarthy emerges from debt deal empowered as speaker, still threatened by far right

    WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is nothing if not a political survivor.

    Underestimated from the start, the Republican who cruised around his California hometown of Bakersfield and stumbled into a career in Congress was never taken too seriously by the Washington establishment.

    With overwhelming House passage of the debt ceiling and budget deal he negotiated with President Joe Biden, the emergent speaker proved the naysayers and eye-rollers otherwise. A relentless force, he pushed a reluctant White House to the negotiating table and delivered the votes from his balky House GOP majority to seal the deal.

    “You still ask the same questions each week: Do you think you can pass the bill this week? Do you think you will still be speaker next week,” McCarthy chided reporters after Wednesday’s late-night vote.

    “Keep underestimating us,” he said, “and we’ll keep proving to the American public that we’ve never given up.”

    The Senate passed the bill Thursday night, sending it to Biden for his signature.

    The whole drama is a turn-of-the-narrative for McCarthy, who came to office viewed as one of the weakest House speakers in modern memory, but has strengthened his grip on power during the debt ceiling fight.

    While hard-right conservatives are still reviving calls for McCarthy’s ouster, complaining the deal he struck with Biden did not go far enough in their demands to cut spending, their voices are muted for now, lacking the numbers needed to execute their plan.

    And perhaps most importantly for McCarthy, who has worked hard to maintain a relationship with Donald Trump, the former president gave a subdued nod of approval to the deal struck by the ally he used to affectionately call “My Kevin.”

    “I would have taken the default if you had to, if you didn’t get it right,” Trump said Wednesday on Iowa radio.

    “But that’s not where they were going. And I think it was an opportunity, but it was also — they got something done. Kevin worked really hard, everybody worked very hard, I mean, with a lot of good intention.”

    The 58-year-old arrives at this moment after an unexpected path to power, landing in Congress in 2007 a rare Republican from liberal California, among a small class of GOP freshmen who bucked that election’s Democratic wave. He rose swiftly to leadership as a political strategist running the party’s campaign arm in the House, not a policy wonk.

    But after suddenly dropping out of the speaker’s race in 2015 to replace John Boehner after an earlier generation of hard-right Republicans drove the then-speaker to early retirement, McCarthy tried again at the start of this year once Republicans swept to power in last fall’s midterm elections.

    Over a grinding week in January, McCarthy bartered, bargained and blustered his way into the powerful speaker’s office with the history-making spectacle of 14 failed votes. He finally claimed the gavel on the 15th try, after wearing out his colleagues and conceding to many of his hard-right critics’ demands for power sharing.

    Those same hard right Republicans now threaten McCarthy’s every move.

    Powered by the House Freedom Caucus, the conservatives’ ability to try ousting the speaker is baked into the House rules, a concession McCarthy made to win the gavel. It gives any single lawmaker to call for a vote to “vacate the chair” and bounce the speaker with a majority House vote.

    Deeply frustrated by the debt ceiling deal McCarthy cut with Biden, the hard-right conservatives immediately flexed their power this week threatening to remove him from office.

    “There’s going to be a reckoning,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas. “It’s war,” warned Rep. Dan Bishop, R-N.C. , in a tweet.

    After Wednesday’s roll call, when Democrats delivered more votes than Republicans to pass the debt ceiling package, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado predicted the vote to oust the speaker would be underway in a matter of weeks.

    “Stay tuned,” he said.

    But the opposite has happened as rank-and-file Republicans are lifting the speaker up, rather than tearing him down.

    Buoyed by the package that is on its way to becoming law, Republicans cheered the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts they achieved by holding their slim majority together to take the fight to the White House, and bringing Democrats to support the compromise.

    They vowed to keep pressing for more.

    “Kevin McCarthy’s stock is trading higher now than it has in any point of his congressional career,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., another ally. “I would be quite surprised by any motion to vacate.”

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has emerged as one of McCarthy’s closest allies, swatted back ideas about ousting him from office. “American people would be thoroughly disgusted,” she said, if Republicans squandered their majority with such infighting.

    Within weeks of taking power, McCarthy asked for a meeting with Biden at the White House, the looming debt ceiling vote, as he tells the story, was top of mind. As they met, he says he wanted to start talks.

    The White House promptly ignored the new speaker.

    Younger than the previous generation of congressional leaders, McCarthy was never seen as a serious player by the Democrats. The president has been in elected office since McCarthy was a young man running a sandwich shop counter and becoming immersed in Reagan-era politics.

    For nearly 100 days, as the speaker tells it, the president refused to meet over the debt limit. The White House says Biden wasn’t about to risk a U.S. default by haggling over budgets. The Democrats demanded that the new Republican majority “show us their plan” — knowing it would be almost impossible for McCarthy to pass anything from his disjointed, razor-thin House Republican majority.

    Then McCarthy did what most of official Washington doubted he ever could do — he persuaded House Republicans to pass their own debt ceiling and spending cuts plan.

    It was a stunning feat for House Republicans, a confidence-builder for the new majority after having floundered and failed for years to coalesce around their priorities. For some fiscal conservatives, it was the first time ever they voted to lift the nation’s borrowing cap.

    And it was an opening offer to the White House.

    The week after the vote, the president drew McCarthy and the other congressional leaders at the White House. They all agreed to launch negotiations as they stared down the June deadline to lift the nation’s borrowing limit, now $31 trillion, or risk a cascading federal default and economic upheaval.

    Outwardly, McCarthy looked like he was breezing through nearly three weeks of grinding negotiations —– bike riding on the National Mall, carting tortilla chips into the Capitol for reporters staking out his office, posing for selfies with tourists under the dome.

    When he finally announced that he and Biden had reached a deal the Sunday evening of Memorial Day weekend, the exhaustion was apparent, his voice raspy and remarks short.

    “Underestimated? For damn sure. Kevin McCarthy has always been underestimated,” said one of the deal negotiators, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.. The votes, he said, “prove out why that is the wrong proposition here in Washington.”

    ___

    Associated Press writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Kevin Freking, Farnoush Amiri, Stephen Groves and Jill Colvin contributed to this story.

    Source link

  • How Biden and McCarthy struck a debt limit deal and staved off a catastrophe

    How Biden and McCarthy struck a debt limit deal and staved off a catastrophe

    WASHINGTON (AP) — It was advice that Mitch McConnell had offered to Joe Biden once already: To resolve the debt limit standoff, he needed to strike a deal with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy — and McCarthy alone. But after the first meeting of the top four congressional leaders with the president in early May, the Senate minority leader felt the need to reemphasize his counsel.

    After returning from the White House that day, McConnell called the president to privately urge him to “shrink the room” – meaning no direct involvement in the talks for himself, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    That, McConnell stressed to Biden, was the only way to avert a potentially economy-rattling default.

    A week later, Biden and McCarthy essentially adopted that path, tapping a handful of trusted emissaries to negotiate a deal that would lift the debt limit. It was a turning point in an impasse that, until then, seemed intractable.

    More on the debt limit deal

    Having lived through the debacle of a 2011 debt limit fight, Biden would not entertain any concessions for a task that he viewed as Congress’ fundamental responsibility. But McCarthy, prodded by conservatives insisting on sweeping changes to federal spending, was intent on using the nation’s borrowing authority as leverage even if it edged the U.S. closer to default.

    The scramble that ensued showed how two of the most powerful figures in Washington — who share a belief in the power of personal relationships, despite not having much of one between themselves — jointly staved off an unprecedented default that could have ravaged the economy and held unknown political consequences. It’s a tale of an underestimated House speaker determined to defy expectations that he couldn’t address a complex debt limit fight, and a president who tuned out the noise from his own party to ensure a default would not happen on his watch.

    But it was also a standoff largely instigated by Republicans who argued they needed to use the debt limit threat as a cudgel to rein in federal spending. And even with a resounding 314-117 House vote — followed by a 63-36 Senate vote — the episode is testing the durability of McCarthy’s speakership and his ability to tame a restive hard-right flank.

    ‘HOW YOU FINISH’

    McCarthy, now emboldened, is unfazed.

    He reflected back on his election as speaker after the House passed the debt limit package, referring to his long battle to claim the gavel in January. “Every question you gave me (was), what could we survive, what could we even do? I told you then, it’s not how you start, it’s how you finish.”

    This account of the weeks-long saga of how Washington defused the debt limit crisis is based on interviews with lawmakers, senior White House officials and top congressional aides, some who requested anonymity to discuss details of private negotiations.

    Perhaps most critical to clearing the blockades were Biden and McCarthy’s five negotiators who came to the discussions armed with policy gravitas and empowered by their principals. Particularly comforting to Republicans was the presence of presidential counselor Steve Ricchetti, who speaks on behalf of Biden like no one else, and Shalanda Young, now the director of the Office and Management and Budget, who cut her teeth as a beloved senior congressional aide managing the complex annual appropriations process.

    Young and Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, one of McCarthy’s negotiators, grew so close that they checked in each morning by phone as they did their respective day care drop-offs. Meanwhile, she and the other GOP negotiator, Rep. Garret Graves, who represents the south central part of Louisiana where Young hails from, ribbed each other over who had the better gumbo recipe and squeezed in debt limit talks during a White House celebration for the national champion Louisiana State University women’s basketball team.

    The five negotiators — Graves, McHenry, Ricchetti, Young and legislative affairs director Louisa Terrell — met daily in a stately office on the first floor of the Capitol, under frescoes painted by the 19th century muralist Constantino Brumidi. Inside, they would home in with seriousness on priorities and red lines to figure out how they could reach a deal.

    THE PAUSE BUTTON AND A ‘REGRESSIVE’ OFFER

    By May 19, the negotiations were getting shaky.

    Republicans were losing patience as the White House didn’t appear to be budging on curbing federal spending. For the GOP, anything short of that was a nonstarter.

    During a morning meeting that Friday, White House officials pushed McHenry and Graves to put a formal offer on the table, but by that point, the frustrated Republicans decided to take it all public.

    Republicans told reporters the talks had momentarily stopped. Graves, in a ball cap and blue button-up shirt that looked more apt for a fishing trip than high-stakes deal-making, said as he walked briskly through the Capitol: “We decided to press pause because it’s just not productive,”

    “We were not going to play games here,” Graves recounted later of his and McHenry’s frustrations.

    The friction wasn’t about to ease. When the negotiations reconvened that night, McHenry and Graves put forward a fresh proposal to administration officials: It not only revived more of the rejected provisions in the GOP’s debt limit bill, but also included the House Republicans’ border-security bill for good measure.

    One White House official called the offer “regressive.”

    The White House went public with its own frustrations as the negotiations seemed to be going awry, first with a lengthy statement from communications director Ben LaBolt and then from Biden himself at a news conference in Hiroshima, Japan, where he was attending a summit of the world’s leading democracies.

    “Now it’s time for the other side to move their extreme positions,” the president said. “Because much of what they’ve already proposed is simply, quite frankly, unacceptable.”

    OPTIMISM, LATE NIGHTS AND GUMMY WORMS

    Even as the public rhetoric sharpened, there were signs that the talks were starting to take a better turn.

    As Biden left Japan, he called McCarthy from Air Force One, and the speaker emerged appearing more optimistic than he had in days. Sustained by coffee, gummy worms and burritos, the negotiators worked grueling hours, mostly at the Capitol but once at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, where they noshed on Call Your Mother bagel sandwiches sent over by Jeff Zients, the White House chief of staff.

    One session lasted until 2:30 a.m. Graves, at another time, showed reporters an app on his phone that tracked his sleep, which showed he was averaging three hours a night during the final stretch.

    Still, McCarthy sent lawmakers home over the Memorial Day weekend, which McHenry said helped.

    “The tone of the White House negotiators became much more serious and much more grounded in the realities they were going to have to accept,” McHenry said.

    SELLING THE DEAL

    By May 27, Biden and McCarthy announced a deal in principle, and now had to sell the agreement in earnest.

    The night before the vote, McCarthy gathered House Republicans in the basement of the Capitol, wheeled in pizza and walked lawmakers through the bill, while daring the Freedom Caucus members to use the same confrontational language they used at a news conference earlier in the day. By the time the meeting ended, it was clear McCarthy had subdued the revolt.

    Meanwhile, the White House had work of its own to mollify rank-and-file Democrats.

    Biden and McCarthy were a study in contrasting styles. The speaker chatted about the debt limit talks at every turn throughout the negotiations to frame the debate on his terms; the president stayed silent by design, leery of fouling anything up before the deal was finalized.

    Even as the deal was coming together, Biden had been privately trying to assuage his party’s concerns. After the Congressional Progressive Caucus publicly eviscerated the few details that they knew of, particularly about toughening requirements for federal safety-net programs, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., got a call that night.

    It was Biden. He assured her that his negotiators were working hard to minimize Republican-drafted changes to programs that offer food stamps and cash assistance.

    “I do believe that had we not done that, this would have been much worse than what I heard,” Jayapal said.

    After the deal was finalized, through phone calls and virtual briefings, White House officials answered questions, explained the agreement’s intricacies and fielded complaints from lawmakers about their communications strategy. As of Thursday, senior White House officials had called more than 130 lawmakers personally.

    Biden himself got on the phone. On one call, he spoke with Rep. Annie Kuster, D-N.H., the leader of the center-left New Democrats Coalition, and thanked her for the group’s efforts to ensure the deal would pass.

    “I appreciate that he knows this institution so well, and that he understands what it takes to deliver these votes to get us across the line and to uphold the full faith and credit of the United States of America,” Kuster said. “We all took an oath.”

    Late Wednesday night, as the House voted its approval with significant bipartisan support, Biden watched from the Cheyenne Mountain Resort in Colorado Springs, where he had traveled to for a commencement address at the Air Force Academy. On the phone with Biden throughout were Ricchetti and Terrell, who were listening in from the West Wing with other legislative aides, munching on more pizza.

    In a statement after the vote, Biden sounded thankful — and relieved.

    “Tonight, the House took a critical step forward to prevent a first-ever default and protect our country’s hard-earned and historic economic recovery,” he said. “This budget agreement is a bipartisan compromise. Neither side got everything it wanted. That’s the responsibility of governing.”

    Then the Senate labored toward its own vote. It passed the bill Thursday night.

    ___

    AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro and AP White House Correspondent Zeke Miller contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • McCarthy dismisses House Freedom Caucus members’ threats to oust him over debt ceiling deal

    McCarthy dismisses House Freedom Caucus members’ threats to oust him over debt ceiling deal

    Washington — House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says he is not concerned about threats from House Freedom Caucus members to oust him from the speakership over the debt ceiling deal with President Biden

    “Look, everybody has the ability to do what they want,” McCarthy said Wednesday. “But if you think I’m going to wake up in the morning and be ever worried about that, no. Doesn’t bother me. If someone thinks they have the right to do it. Call the motion.” 

    In order to win over conservative members in his bid to become speaker earlier this year, McCarthy agreed to a House rule that allows a single member to call for a “motion to vacate,” which forces a vote on removing the House leader. The no-confidence vote would need only a simple majority to oust him. 

    House Freedom Caucus members have railed against the agreement, saying it doesn’t go far enough to rein in government spending and calling for stricter work requirements for safety-net programs. 

    GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida suggested a vote of no confidence could come if McCarthy has to rely on Democrats to pass the debt ceiling legislation.

    “If a majority of Republicans are against a piece of legislation and you use Democrats to pass it, that would immediately be a black-letter violation of the deal we had with McCarthy,” Gaetz told Newsmax on Tuesday. “And it would likely trigger an immediate motion to vacate.”

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy speaks to members of the media while arriving to the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, May 31, 2023.
    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy speaks to members of the media while arriving to the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, May 31, 2023. 

    Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg via Getty Images


    McCarthy has said he expects a majority of Republicans to vote in favor of the bill, which cleared a key procedural hurdle Tuesday evening. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told “Face the Nation” on Sunday that it was his understanding that at least 150 Republicans would vote for the deal, but McCarthy would not say Wednesday whether he would be able to deliver that many votes. 

    GOP Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina said Tuesday at a news conference with House Freedom Caucus members that the bill “must pass with less than half of the Republican conference,” and called it a “career-defining vote for every Republican.” 

    “To my colleagues in the Republican conference, you have a few hours to make up your mind,” Bishop said. “You are the key to our being able to reacquire the unity. Now it’s going to take some steps, by the way, because the leadership decision to forfeit that is going to have to be dealt with.” 

    Bishop later told Politico that he was considering trying to oust McCarthy from the speakership. 

    “Absolutely,” Bishop said. “It is inescapable to me. It has to be done.”

    But Bishop also told the news outlet that he wants support from his colleagues before such a move. 

    In a House Freedom Caucus call on Monday, Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado floated the no-confidence vote, but chairman Scott Perry of Pennsylvania suggested it might be too soon for such a move, according to NBC News. He later said he had only brought it up to see if “they were considering a motion to vacate as a result of a broken promise.” 

    Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana, who was one of the Republican negotiators of the debt ceiling deal, acknowledged Wednesday that there was “some trust lost” with House Freedom Caucus members. 

    Ellis Kim contributed reporting. 

    Source link

  • Debt ceiling bill clears first House hurdle, teeing up Wednesday vote

    Debt ceiling bill clears first House hurdle, teeing up Wednesday vote

    Washington — The bipartisan agreement to raise the debt ceiling and limit government spending passed a critical test in Congress on Tuesday, advancing out of the House Rules Committee despite opposition from some conservatives.

    With the clock ticking to prevent the nation from defaulting on its debts, the committee, which sets ground rules and the length of time for debating legislation and any amendments allowed, voted 7 to 6 on Tuesday to move the bill to the House floor, where a vote is expected Wednesday. 

    Two members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who sit on the panel — Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina — voted against allowing it to move forward, saying it does little to rein in government spending. They would have needed one more Republican on the committee to join them to sideline the deal, which President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached over the weekend after weeks of talks.

    But Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a third conservative on the committee, provided the deciding vote in advancing the legislation. 

    “When people want to express their ideology, the floor of the House on the actual final passage of the bill is the place to do that,” Massie said. 

    The House Rules Committee is just the first hurdle the deal has to clear before its potential final passage. Congress is trying to get the legislation across the finish line before Monday, when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has projected the federal government will run out of cash to pay its bills. 

    A growing number of Republicans have said they’ll vote no, including Reps. Wesley Hunt of Texas, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Cory Mills of Florida. The House Freedom Caucus is also rallying other Republicans to vote against it. 

    “This deal fails, fails completely,” Freedom Caucus chairman Scott Perry said at a news conference Tuesday ahead of the Rules Committee vote. “That’s why these members and others will be absolutely opposed to the deal and we will do everything in our power to stop it.” 

    “Not one Republican should vote for this deal. It is a bad deal,” Roy added. 

    Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina called it a “career-defining vote for every Republican.” 

    “If there is any path to salvaging what we began as a unified conference, if there is any path to that, this bill, if it passes, must pass with less than half of the Republican conference,” Bishop said. 

    McCarthy has said he expects a majority of House Republicans to support the bill. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said it’s his understanding that at least 150 Republicans would vote for the deal, which means at least 68 Democrats are needed to pass the bill in the House. But in an interview with “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Jeffries demurred when asked how many Democrats would back it. 

    The deal also faces opposition in the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it needs 60 votes to pass.

    Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said it doesn’t go far enough to reduce spending, while GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said he opposes caps on defense spending that could take effect later in the year if Congress doesn’t approve government spending bills. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said he plans to offer an amendment “with responsible reforms and necessary cuts.” 

    Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia is seeking to remove a new natural gas pipeline project from the bill, his office said Monday. The bill would fast-track construction of the pipeline, which would carry natural gas from West Virginia to Virginia.

    “This provision is completely unrelated to the debt ceiling matter,” his spokeswoman said in a statement. “He plans to file an amendment to remove this harmful Mountain Valley Pipeline provision.”

    Source link

  • Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial to begin no later than August 28

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment trial to begin no later than August 28

    A historic impeachment trial in Texas to determine whether Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton should be permanently removed from office will begin no later than August in the state Senate, where the jury that would determine his future could include his wife, Sen. Angela Paxton.

    Setting the date was one of the last orders of business lawmakers took Monday during a sluggish end to this year’s legislative session in Texas, where the impeachment laid bare fractures in America’s biggest red state beyond whether Republicans will oust one of the GOP’s conservative legal stars.

    It drags Republicans — who for years have pushed fast-changing Texas farther to the right — into a summer of unfinished business and soured feelings that are likely to spill into 2024’s elections.

    Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called for a special session that began at 9 p.m., central time, adding that multiple special sessions would be required.

    At the center of the conflict is Paxton, who the GOP-controlled House overwhelmingly impeached this weekend on charges that include bribery and misuse of office following nearly a decade of scandal and criminal accusations that have dogged the state’s top lawyer. He is suspended from office pending trial in the state Senate, which set a start date of no later than Aug. 28.

    Underlining how Paxton’s impeachment has upended the Texas Capitol, the session ended with a dozen House lawmakers walking across the building and delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate, where there are 31 senators who could act as jurors.

    In a complicating twist, one of them is Paxton’s wife, Republican Sen. Angela Paxton, who has not spoken publicly since the impeachment or said whether she will recuse herself from the proceedings. She declined to comment Monday when approached by The Associated Press outside the Senate chamber.

    The chairman of the House investigation, Republican state Rep. Andrew Murr, also declined to comment on whether it would be appropriate for Sen. Paxton to participate.

    “We will manage this process with the weight and reverence it deserves and requires,” Murr said.

    The impeachment made for a dramatic finale to the 140-day legislative session in Texas, where Republicans started the year with large GOP majorities following a dominant midterm election, a historic $33 billion surplus and a governor seen as a possible 2024 presidential contender.

    But instead of a smooth victory lap this spring, Republicans spent months clashing with each other over promises to cut property taxes and provide vouchers to public school students, and in the end, delivered neither before time was up. The first special session Abbott announced on Monday would take up the property tax issue as well as border security, he said in a statement.

    Both were priorities of Abbott, who was silent as the session ended. He could also appoint an interim attorney general but has made no public comment about Paxton since impeachment proceedings began last week.

    Among those who have rushed to Paxton’s defense are activists on the GOP’s hard right and former President Donald Trump, the leading contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, who over the weekend posted on his social media platform that the governor was “MISSING IN ACTION!”

    In a state where Republicans have controlled every lever of power for decades — and have used that dominance to put Texas out front nationally over contentious measures to restrict abortion and immigration — the failure of several promises in the state Capitol underscored how they do not always move in lockstep.

    “There are certainly battle lines that exist within the Republican Party,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. “I don’t think they’re ideological. I think you could read into this that the House is tired of being pressured by far-right Republicans and this is their way of putting in some barriers.”

    The rifts are not new in Texas, and more broadly, Republicans succeed in passing a slew of measures they held up as victories for conservatives, including bans on gender-affirming care and banning offices of diversity, equity and inclusion at the state’s universities.

    They also put Harris County, the third-largest county in the nation that is controlled by Democrats, under new laws that forced them to fire their elections administrator and opens a path for state officials to take greater control over their elections.

    Paxton is only the third sitting official in Texas’ nearly 200-year history to be impeached. He called the House investigation that led up to his impeachment “corrupt” and has broadly denied wrongdoing. The raft of accusations against him include an indictment on securities fraud charges and allegations that he misused his office to try to thwart an FBI investigation into one of his donors.

    “What happened this week is nothing I take pride in,” Phelan told the chamber. “It is not anything I was proud of. But it was necessary. It was just.”

    Source link

  • Debt ceiling deal’s next steps — getting it through Congress

    Debt ceiling deal’s next steps — getting it through Congress

    Now that President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy have reached an agreement to suspend the debt ceiling and prevent the nation from defaulting on its debts, the White House and congressional leaders must convince enough lawmakers in the narrowly divided House and Senate to pass the legislation.

    The agreement includes spending cuts demanded by Republicans, but it is short of the reductions in the sweeping legislation passed by the GOP-majority House last month. In exchange for raising the debt limit for two years — beyond the next presidential election — a two-year budget deal would hold spending flat for 2024 and impose limits for 2025. 

    It also expands some work requirements for food-stamp recipients and edits an environmental law to try to streamline reviews to build new energy projects.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen projected last week that the nation could default on its debt obligations by June 5 if lawmakers do not act in time to raise the federal debt ceiling.

    Mr. Biden told reporters at the White House Sunday afternoon that he planned to call McCarthy “to make sure all the T’s are crossed and the I’s are dotted.” The House then released the 99-page legislative text Sunday evening.

    Here’s what’s next in the rush to pass an agreement through Congress:

    Selling the deal

    Both Republicans and Democrats are expected to lose some votes, and leaders on both sides have been telling the rank and file that neither side won everything it wanted, as they strive to ensure that the deal has the support to pass both chambers. The president has urged both the House and Senate “to pass the agreement right away.”

    Under House rules, lawmakers must have 72 hours to read the bill, and since they received it on Sunday, Wednesday is the earliest day the House can vote. 

    McCarthy said he expects a majority of Republicans to support it and many Democrats, too, because Mr. Biden backs the bill. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that he expects “there will be Democratic support once we have the ability to be fully briefed by the White House, but I’m not going to predict what those numbers will ultimately look like.” 

    The reaction has been mixed, so far. Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina tweeted a vomit emoji, complaining that some Republicans on the call were praising the speaker for getting what he said is “almost zippo in exchange” for the debt ceiling hike.

    Rep. Matt Rosendale, Republican of Montana, says he’ll vote no. He said in a statement Sunday, “It is frankly an insult to the American people to support a piece of legislation that continues to put our country’s financial future at risk.”

    South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, an ally of McCarthy, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that “overwhelmingly, Republicans in this conference are going to support the deal. How could they not? It’s a fantastic deal.”

    Not all Democrats appear to be on board with the agreement, either. Rep. Jim Himes, of Connecticut, said on “Fox News Sunday” that “there is absolutely nothing for the Democrats” in the bill and he’s “tempted to say” he’s voting no.

    It appears that the bill will require strong bipartisan support to pass. Jeffries said on “Face the Nation” that he expected Republicans to produce “at least 150 votes, if not more,” meaning that at least 68 Democrats would also have to back it.

    Asked Monday if he felt confident it would pass, President Biden said, “You know, I never say I’m confident with what the Congress is going to do. But I feel very good about it.”


    President Biden speaks about debt ceiling deal reached with Speaker McCarthy

    04:44

    Both the House and Senate are expected to return to the Capitol Tuesday, after Memorial Day. 

    House rules for the vote

    Before the House can consider the bill, the House Rules Committee will hold a hearing at 3 p.m. Tuesday, which will determine the rules and length of time for debating the bill and any amendments that would be allowed.

    This committee has a 9-4 Republican majority, including some McCarthy allies. But two House Freedom Caucus members who’ve blasted the deal also sit on the panel,  Rep. Chip Roy, of Texas, and Rep. Ralph Norman, of South Carolina.

    McCarthy said the House would vote Wednesday, which would then send the bill to the Senate.

    The Senate

    Once the bill reaches the Senate, where Democrats have the majority, the pace of action will largely depend on whether any senators try to hold up the bill, possibly with amendment votes. That could tie up the legislation for a few days.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned members Sunday that “due to the time it may take to process the legislation in the Senate without cooperation, Senators should prepare for potential Friday and weekend votes.”

    Still, the Senate can move quickly when it has agreement from all 100 senators. The bill could be passed by the end of the week and then sent to Mr. Biden, who would sign it into law.

    Scott MacFarlane and Zak Hudak contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Why Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment fight isn’t finished yet

    Why Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s impeachment fight isn’t finished yet

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Texas Legislature already made one historic move with its impeachment of Republican state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Another one is coming.

    The GOP-led House of Representatives on Saturday approved 20 articles of impeachment on sweeping allegations of wrongdoing that have trailed the state’s top lawyer for years, including abuse of office and bribery. The vote immediately suspended Paxton from office.

    But the intraparty brawl in the nation’s largest conservative state, one that even drew political punches Saturday from former President Donald Trump, is far from over. The Republican-controlled Senate will hold a trial of Paxton next, and he and his allies hope conservatives there will save him.

    One member of that chamber is his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, and she could cast a vote on her husband’s political future, which is now in jeopardy in part because of bribery allegations linked to his extra-marital affair.

    THE SENATE

    Impeachment in Texas is similar to the process on the federal level: After the House action, the Senate holds its trial.

    It is yet to be scheduled.

    The House needed just a simple majority of its 149 members to impeach Paxton, and the final 121-23 vote was a landslide. But the threshold for conviction in the Senate trial is higher, requiring a two-thirds majority of its 31 members.

    If that happens, Paxton would be permanently barred from holding office in Texas. Anything less means Paxton is acquitted and can resume his third term as attorney general.

    Paxton bitterly criticized the chamber’s investigation as “corrupt,” secret and conducted so quickly that he and his lawyers were not allowed to mount a defense. He also called Republican House Speaker Dade a “liberal.”

    The Senate is led by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. Like Paxton, he is a Republican who has closely allied himself with Trump, and he has driven Texas’ right-wing political and policy push for the last decade. Patrick has yet to comment on the impeachment or the House’s allegations.

    The Senate will set its own trial rules, including whether to take witness testimony and what reports and documents to consider. It could also consider whether to excuse Angela Paxton from voting due to conflict of interest.

    The impeachment charges include bribery related to one of Paxton’s donors, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul, allegedly employing the woman with whom he had the affair in exchange for legal help.

    Another Republican senator with a potential conflict is Sen. Bryan Hughes. The House impeachment articles accuse Paxton of using Hughes as a “straw requestor” for a legal opinion used to protect protect Paul from foreclosure on several properties.

    State law requires all senators to be present for an impeachment trial.

    REPUBLICAN ON REPUBLICAN

    Paxton’s impeachment has been led from the start by his fellow Republicans, in contrast to America’s most prominent recent examples of impeachment.

    Trump’s impeachments in 2020 and 2021 were driven by Democrats who had majority control of the U.S. House. In both cases, the charges they approved failed in the Senate, where Republicans had enough votes to block conviction.

    In Texas, Republicans have large majorities in both chambers, and the state’s GOP leaders hold all levers of influence.

    Paxton called for Republicans to rally to his defense during Saturday’s vote in a peaceful protest at the Capitol. That echoed Trump’s call for protests of his electoral defeat on Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob violently stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington. Paxton spoke at the rally in Washington that day before the insurrection.

    Trump joined the fray in Texas on Saturday, posting on social media a warning to House members that “I will fight you” if they voted to impeach. A few hundred Paxton supporters came to watch from the gallery.

    House Republicans didn’t seem to care. Sixty of them, 71% of the chamber’s GOP caucus, voted to impeach.

    Republican Party Chairman Matt Rinaldi, a Paxton ally, said the party would have to rely on the “principled leadership of the Texas Senate to restore sanity and reason.”

    The move to the Senate could give Paxton’s grass-roots supporters and national figures like Trump time to apply more pressure.

    YEARS IN THE MAKING

    The impeachment reaches back to 2015, when Paxton was indicted on securities fraud charges for which he still has not stood trial. The lawmakers charged Paxton with making false statements to state securities regulators.

    But most of the articles of impeachment stem from his connections to Paul and a remarkable revolt by Paxton’s top deputies in 2020.

    That fall, eight senior aides reported their boss to the FBI, accusing him of bribery and abusing his office to help Paul. Four of them later brought a whistleblower lawsuit. The report prompted a federal criminal investigation that in February was taken over by the U.S. Justice Department’s Washington-based Public Integrity Section.

    The impeachment charges cover myriad accusations related to Paxton’s dealings with Paul. The allegations include attempts to interfere in foreclosure lawsuits and improperly issuing legal opinions to benefit Paul, as well as firing, harassing and interfering with staff who reported what was going on. The bribery charges stem from the affair, as well as Paul allegedly paying for expensive renovations to Paxton’s Austin home.

    The fracas took a toll on the Texas attorney general’s office, long one of the primary legal challengers to Democratic administrations in the White House.

    In the years since Paxton’s staff went to the FBI, the state attorney general’s office has become unmoored by the disarray. Seasoned lawyers have quit over practices they say aim to slant legal work, reward loyalists and drum out dissent.

    In February, Paxton agreed to settle the whistleblower lawsuit brought by the former aides. The $3.3 million payout must be approved by the Legislature, and Phelan has said he doesn’t think taxpayers should foot the bill.

    Shortly after the settlement was reached, the House investigation began.

    TEXAS HISTORY

    Paxton was already likely to be noted in history books for his unprecedented request that the U.S. Supreme Court overturn Biden’s defeat of Trump in 2020. He now is one of just three sitting officials to have been impeached in Texas.

    Gov. James “Pa” Ferguson was removed in 1917 for misapplication of public funds, embezzlement and the diversion of a special fund. State Judge O.P. Carrillo was forced from office in 1975 for personal use of public money and equipment and filing false financial statements.

    ___

    Bleiberg reported from Dallas.

    Source link

  • Texas lawmakers recommend impeaching Attorney General Ken Paxton

    Texas lawmakers recommend impeaching Attorney General Ken Paxton

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton teetered on the brink of impeachment Thursday after years of scandal, criminal charges and corruption accusations that the state’s Republican majority had largely met with silence until now.

    In an unanimous decision, a Republican-led House investigative committee that spent months quietly looking into Paxton recommended impeaching the state’s top lawyer. The state House of Representatives could vote on the recommendation as soon as Friday. If the House impeaches Paxton, he would be forced to leave office immediately.

    The move sets up a remarkably sudden downfall for one of the GOP’s most prominent legal combatants, who in 2020 asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn President Biden’s victory. Only two officials in Texas’ nearly 200-year history have been impeached.

    Paxton has been under FBI investigation for years over accusations that he used his office to help a donor and was separately indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015, but has yet to stand trial.

    Unlike in Congress, impeachment in Texas requires immediate removal from office until a trial is held in the Senate. That means Paxton faces ouster at the hands of GOP lawmakers just seven months after easily winning a third term over challengers — among them George P. Bush — who had urged voters to reject a compromised incumbent but discovered that many didn’t know about Paxton’s litany of alleged misdeeds or dismissed the accusations as political attacks. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott could appoint an interim replacement.

    US-POLITICS-IMMIGRATION-JUSTICE-MEXICO
    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton speaks to reporters in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 26, 2022.

    STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images


    Two of Paxton’s defense attorneys did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Paxton has suggested that the investigation that came to light to week is a politically motivated attack by a “liberal” Republican House speaker, whom he also accused of being drunk on the job.

    Chris Hilton, a senior lawyer in the attorney general’s office, told reporters before Thursday’s committee vote that what investigators said about Paxton was “false,” “misleading,” and “full of errors big and small.” He said all of the allegations were known to voters when they reelected Paxton in November.

    Impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of the state’s 150-member House chamber, where Republicans hold a commanding 85-64 majority.

    In one sense, Paxton’s political peril arrived with dizzying speed: House Republicans did not reveal they had been investigating him until Tuesday, followed the next day by an extraordinary public airing of alleged criminal acts he committed as one of Texas’ most powerful figures.

    But to Paxton’s detractors, who now include a widening share of his own party in the Texas Capitol, the rebuke was seen as years in the making.

    In 2014, he admitted to violating Texas securities law over not registering as an investment advisor while soliciting clients. A year later, Paxton was indicted on felony securities charges by a grand jury in his hometown near Dallas, where he was accused of defrauding investors in a tech startup. He has pleaded not guilty to two felony counts that carry a potential sentence of five to 99 years in prison.

    He opened a legal defense fund and accepted $100,000 from an executive whose company was under investigation by Paxton’s office for Medicaid fraud. An additional $50,000 was donated by an Arizona retiree whose son Paxton later hired to a high-ranking job but was soon fired after trying to make a point by displaying child pornography in a meeting.

    What has unleashed the most serious risk to Paxton is his relationship with another wealthy donor, Austin real estate developer Nate Paul.

    Several of Paxton’s top aides in 2020 said they became concerned the attorney general was misusing the powers of his office to help Paul over unproven claims that an elaborate conspiracy to steal $200 million of his properties was afoot. The FBI searched Paul’s home in 2019 but he has not been charged and his attorneys have denied wrongdoing. Paxton also told staff members that he had an affair with a woman who, it later emerged, worked for Paul.

    Paxton’s aides accused him of corruption and were all fired or quit after reporting him to the FBI. Four sued under Texas’ whistleblower laws, accusing Paxton of wrongful retaliation, and in February agreed to settle the case for $3.3 million. But the Texas House must approve the payout and Phelan has said he doesn’t think taxpayers should foot the bill.

    Shortly after the settlement was reached, the House investigation into Paxton began. The probe amounted to rare scrutiny of Paxton in the state Capitol, where many Republicans have long taken a muted posture about the accusations that have followed the attorney general.

    That includes Abbott, who in January swore in Paxton for a third term and said the way he approached the job was “the right way to run the attorney’s general’s office.”

    Only twice has the Texas House impeached a sitting official: Gov. James Ferguson in 1917 and state Judge O.P. Carrillo in 1975.

    Source link

  • House Democrat introduces resolution to expel George Santos from Congress

    House Democrat introduces resolution to expel George Santos from Congress

    Washington — Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia introduced a resolution Tuesday to expel Republican Rep. George Santos from Congress, seeking to force Republicans in the House to go on the record over whether the indicted congressman should keep his seat.

    “It’s very clear that he’s a liar, he’s a fraud. And besides the 13 counts that just happen to all be serious, I think it’s more important to note that he’s already admitted to actual criminal activity, to actual fraud in Brazil,” Garcia told reporters, referring to federal charges Santos faces in New York and a criminal case he reportedly resolved in Brazil last week.

    Garcia, from California, introduced his resolution as privileged, meaning it must get a vote within two days under House rules. He said a vote would make Republicans go on the record about whether they “stand for truth and accountability or if they’re going to stand with someone that’s clearly a liar.” 

    Asked about the resolution on Tuesday, Santos told CBS News that House Democrats “are really good at trying to play judge and jury and trying to hold people guilty before they’ve even been given a free shot at a trial,” adding that he was “confident that justice is blind and that it is not biased like Robert Garcia is.”

    The resolution is unlikely to succeed, given the political dynamics at play and underlying mechanics involved in expelling a sitting representative. Under House rules, Republicans can move to table the measure or refer it to the House Ethics Committee, both of which would require a simple majority. A vote on the underlying resolution to expel Santos would require the approval of two thirds of members under the Constitution. Republicans control the 435-seat House by a margin of four seats, meaning dozens of GOP members would need to side with the Democrats to successfully expel Santos.

    Santos was charged last week in federal court with fraud, money laundering and other crimes, with prosecutors alleging he pocketed thousands of dollars collected as campaign contributions. Santos, who has lied about numerous aspects of his background, pleaded not guilty and recently announced he will run for reelection next year.

    Garcia’s resolution reads: “That, pursuant to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, Representative George Santos, be, and he hereby is, expelled from the House of Representatives.” He introduced a similar resolution earlier this year that went nowhere.

    Ellis Kim and Rebecca Kaplan and contributed reporting. 

    Source link

  • North Carolina governor vetoes legislation that would limit abortion access setting the stage for a

    North Carolina governor vetoes legislation that would limit abortion access setting the stage for a

    In front of an exuberant crowd, North Carolina’s Democratic governor vetoed legislation Saturday that would have banned nearly all abortions in his state after 12 weeks of pregnancy.

    Hundreds of abortion-rights activists and voters watched on a plaza in the capital of Raleigh as Gov. Roy Cooper affixed his veto stamp to the bill. The veto launches a major test for leaders of the GOP-controlled General Assembly to attempt to override Cooper’s veto after they recently gained veto-proof majorities in both chambers. The bill was the Republican response to last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

    “We’re going to have to kick it into an even higher gear when that veto stamp comes down,” Cooper told the crowd. “If just one Republican in either the House or the Senate keeps a campaign promise to protect women’s reproductive health, we can stop this ban.”

    Andrea Long, a 42-year-old mother of three from Cary, said she was honored to be part of an “electric” crowd on what she called a “historic day for freedom” in North Carolina.

    “I couldn’t stop crying tears of joy seeing the governor hold up the veto stamp, but I know it’s an uphill battle to keep this momentum going,” Long said.

    Cooper, a strong abortion-rights supporter, had until Sunday night to act on the measure that tightens current state law, which bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

    Abortion North Carolina
    Abortion rights supporters gather at a rally at Bicentennial Plaza put on by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic in response to a bill before the North Carolina Legislature. 

    Karl B DeBlaker via AP


    Cooper spent the week on the road talking to North Carolinians about the bill’s lesser-known impacts and urging them to apply pressure upon key Republican lawmakers who hesitated about further restrictions during campaigns for office last year. The legislation passed along party lines in the last week in the House and Senate.

    Republicans have pitched the measure as a middle-ground change to state abortion laws developed after months of private negotiations between House and Senate GOP members. It adds exceptions to the 12-week ban, extending the limit through 20 weeks for rape and incest and through 24 weeks for “life-limiting” fetal anomalies.

    But Cooper has said repeatedly the details contained in the 47-page bill show that the measure isn’t a reasonable compromise and would instead greatly erode reproductive rights.

    He cites new obstacles for women to obtain abortions — such as requiring multiple in-person visits, additional paperwork to prove a patient has given their informed consent to an abortion and increased regulation of clinics providing the procedure.

    Cooper and allies have said those changes in practice will shut down clinics that cannot afford major upgrades mandated by new licensing standards and make it nearly impossible for women who live in rural areas or work long hours to access abortion services.

    Compared to recent actions by Republican-controlled legislatures elsewhere, the broad prohibition after 12 weeks can be viewed as less onerous to those in other states where the procedure has been banned almost completely. But abortion-rights activists have argued that it’s more restrictive than meets the eye and will have far-reaching consequences. Since Roe was overturned, many patients traveling from more restrictive states have become dependent on North Carolina as a locale for abortions later in pregnancy.


    Economy, abortion rights top concerns as 2024 election draws candidates

    07:16

    Republicans call the legislation pro-family and pro-child, pointing to at least $160 million in spending contained within for maternal health services, foster and adoption care, contraceptive services and paid leave for teachers and state employees after the birth of a child.

    Cooper has singled out four GOP legislators — three House members and one senator — whom he said made “campaign promises to protect women’s reproductive health.” Anti-abortion groups accused Cooper of trying to bully them.

    One of those House members is Rep. Tricia Cotham of Mecklenburg County, who voted for the bill mere weeks after she switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP. The move gave Republicans a veto-proof supermajority if all of their legislators are present and voting.

    Cotham has spoken out for abortion rights in the past and even earlier this year co-sponsored a bill to codify abortion protections into state law. Rep. Ted Davis of Wilmington — another targeted legislator — was the only Republican absent from last week’s initial House vote. The Senate margin already became veto-proof after GOP gains last November.

    Davis said last fall that he supported “what the law is in North Carolina right now,” which was a 20-week limit. Davis has declined to comment on the bill, but House Speaker Tim Moore said recently that Davis is a “yes” vote for an override.

    Source link

  • Senate holds first hearing on bill – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Senate holds first hearing on bill – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    Aaron Smith, CEO of the National Cannabis Industry Association, speaks during a news conference on the Safe Banking Act outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sept. 14, 2022.

    Ting Shen | Bloomberg | Getty Images

    The Senate banking committee is holding its first-ever hearing Thursday on a bipartisan bill that would allow the cannabis industry to access traditional banking services, which marijuana businesses see as critical to their survival.

    The meeting, titled Examining Cannabis Banking Challenges of Small Businesses and Workers, will hear testimony from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, including Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Steve Daines, R-Mont., who reintroduced the stand-alone bill last week. The committee will also hear from witnesses including the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, Drug Policy Alliance and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

    Thursday’s hearing will determine next steps in getting the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other key lawmakers express support for it. It comes as the marijuana industry, which is facing a downturn even as more states approve legal markets, has pushed Congress to take action on the issue.

    “Without full access to the banking and payments system, legal cannabis businesses are forced to operate in the shadows,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who is also chair of the committee.

    Many business owners also rely on funds from friends and family in lieu…

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • McCarthy says House will take up bill to raise debt ceiling with spending cuts

    McCarthy says House will take up bill to raise debt ceiling with spending cuts

    House Speaker Kevin McCarthy pledged on Monday to pass legislation to raise the nation’s debt ceiling — but on condition of capping future federal spending at 1% — as he lashed out at President Biden for refusing to engage in budget-cutting negotiations to prevent a debt crisis.

    In a high-profile speech at the New York Stock Exchange, McCarthy, the Republican leader who is marking his 100th day as speaker, said the nation’s debt load is a “ticking time bomb” and Mr. Biden is “missing in action” as the deadline nears to raise the debt limit.

    “Make no mistake: the longer President Biden waits to be sensible, to find an agreement, the more likely it becomes that this administration will bumble into the first default in our nation’s history,” he said. “Let me be clear: defaulting on our debt is not an option. But neither is a future of higher taxes, higher interest rates, more dependency on China and an economy that doesn’t work for working Americans.”

    His Wall Street address comes as the Washington is heading toward a potential fiscal crisis over the need to raise the nation’s debt limit, now at $31 trillion, and avert a federal default. The Treasury Department has said it is taking “extraordinary measures” to continue paying its bills, but money will run short this summer.

    McCarthy faces his own challenges. With his slim majority and less-than-strong grip on power, he has been unable to rally his troops around a budget-cutting proposal that he could offer the White House as a starting point in negotiations.

    Still, McCarthy vowed to pass a bill through the House that would raise the nation’s debt limit for one year — putting the issue squarely in the 2024 presidential election — coupling it with a plan to roll back federal spending to fiscal 2022 levels and cap future spending at no more than 1%.

    Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy speaks at the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Monday, April 17, 2023.
    Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy speaks at the New York Stock Exchange in New York on Monday, April 17, 2023.

    Seth Wenig / AP


    Republicans also want to attach policy priorities, including cuts to benefit programs in the federal safety net for poorer Americans.

    The White House said ahead of McCarthy’s address that “a speech isn’t a plan,” dismissing his overture and reupping pressure on the Republican leader to approve a debt ceiling increase with no strings attached.

    “There is one responsible solution to the debt limit: addressing it promptly, without brinksmanship or hostage taking,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates.

    Once a routine matter, the need for Congress to pass legislation raising the nation’s debt limit to continue paying already accrued bills has increasingly become a political weapon wielded particularly by Republicans as leverage for their policy priorities.

    McCarthy is working furiously to unite the “five families” — the various caucuses including the Freedom Caucus, Republican Study Committee and others within the House Republican majority — around a plan that could be presented to Mr. Biden to kickstart negotiations.

    Federal spending skyrocketed during the COVID-19 crisis, rising to $7.4 trillion in 2021, before sliding back to $6.2 trillion in fiscal 2022, according to Treasury Department data. The nation’s debt load has also climbed steadily, doubling during the George W. Bush administration with the 9/11-era wars overseas, and spiking again during the Obama administration as spending rose and tax revenue plummeted during the Great Recession.

    The nation runs more than $1 trillion in annual deficits, and the last time the federal budget balanced was 2001.

    McCarthy noted that President Ronald Reagan similarly warned of government spending. The cuts the House Republicans want to make are not “draconian,” McCarthy said.

    Once, his speech was interrupted by applause from the executives and others at the stock exchange.

    The White House and Democrats in Congress have been unwilling to engage in talks with the Republicans, saying Congress must simply raise the debt limit without conditions.

    The split screen on display in New York, though, showed the challenges ahead for McCarthy in focusing on budget matters.

    As the speaker delivered his speech, his hard-charging Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan was convening a New York City “field hearing” focused partly on District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who indicted former President Donald Trump.

    Source link