Archive by Author

Chair of Texas Log Cabin Republicans group resigns after state GOP adopts new platform

The acting chair of the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas (LCR), resigned Thursday just days after the new proposed Texas GOP platform defined homosexuality as an “abnormal lifestyle choice.”

In his resignation letter shared via the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas social media page, Michael Cargill said that it was with “great concern” that he leaves the board.

He added that LCR Texas Secretary and Vice-President of LCR Austin David Garza along with board member and President of LCR San Antonio Mimi Planas will also resigning from the Texas board.

Cargill cited a “path of divisiveness, lack of respect” as well as “bully tactics, lack of cohesion and unwillingness to work with all chapter and state LCR leaders in the organization.”

He added that he sees “DC and California LCR members inexplicably interceding in Texas affairs” and trying to bully the Texas GOP.

According to Cargill, he will continue to be president of LCR Austin, where he says the organization has a “great working relationship” with the GOP leadership at the Texas Capitol.

The Log Cabin Republicans of Texas describes the organization as “a group of LGBT Republicans and their straight allies” who have chosen to transform the GOP from the inside, “working to overcome the forces of exclusion and intolerance.” 

The Texas GOP party on Saturday adopted the 40-page platform at its biennial convention in Houston after passing the party’s new principles, which includes a section titled “Homosexuality and Gender Issues.”

“We believe there should be no granting of special legal entitlements or creation of special status for homosexual behavior, regardless of state of origin,” the document reads.

In response, Cargill told KXAN on Sunday. “It’s a small minority of people that It’s a small minority of people that are being un-Christian-like and spewing this hateful language.” 

The Hill has reached out to the Texas GOP and LCR for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ukraine withdraws troops from besieged Severodonetsk

Ukraine is withdrawing its troops from the city of Severodonetsk, one of the last remaining strongholds in the easternmost region of the country, as Russia seeks to close in on the Luhansk province. 

Serhiy Haidai, the regional governor of Luhansk, said in a Telegram post that keeping Ukrainian forces to defend the city no longer makes sense as the death toll rises. He said Russia has been shelling the city almost every day for four months, since the start of the invasion. 

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had said earlier this month that the fate of eastern Ukraine was being decided in Severodonetsk. Russia concentrated its attack on the Donbas region, made up of the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces, after facing strong opposition in trying to take the country’s capital of Kyiv.

The city has seen intense fighting as Russian forces have laid siege, causing significant casualties on both sides. 

Haidai said Severodonetsk’s infrastructure has been completely destroyed, with 90 percent of houses damaged or destroyed. He added that Russian soldiers are advancing toward Lysychansk, a nearby city. 

Zelensky also said this month that the battle for Severodonetsk will be one of the most difficult of the war and showed appreciation to those who have defended the city. 

The announcement of the withdrawal comes as Ukraine scored a significant non-military success when it was officially declared a candidate for membership in the European Union on Thursday. The process of Ukraine joining the EU may take years, but its acceptance as a candidate further connects Ukraine to the Western part of Europe as it tries to stay out of the Russian sphere of influence.

Source: TEST FEED1

Nonprofits need a seat at the governing table

As leaders of two nonprofits — one national, the other local — we work in a range of communities and provide a variety of essential services. When Americans need support or seek to create community, nonprofits are trusted and dependable sources of help and partnership. This never has been more apparent than during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the nonprofit sector rose to meet this unprecedented international emergency. Families experiencing hunger, individuals facing eviction, and communities in crisis found some of the help they needed from nonprofits in their communities.

Nonprofits are the third-largest sector of the U.S. workforce and a vital portion of the economy motivated by service to people and impact, rather than financial profit. Examples of this support are endless. March of Dimes supported over 50,000 NICU families and has offered implicit bias training to more than 35,000 health care providers in more than 30 states and Washington, D.C. since 2020. Children’s Aid served nearly 50,000 children and families with education, social-emotional, and health supports, and distributed more than 230,000 food packages to families in New York City since the onset of the pandemic.

Now, with COVID infections continuing to sweep through the U.S. and no additional funding in sight to meet people’s needs, organizations such as ours are responding to help people once again. Local, state and federal governments often lean on us during times of crisis. Despite the sector’s size and demonstrated ability to improve lives and create healthier communities, nonprofits are sometimes an afterthought in the policymaking process, and this lag hurts the ability of organizations to deliver help to people.

This is why we heartily applaud Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Fred Upton (R-Mich.) for proposing the Nonprofit Sector Strength and Partnership Act of 2022 (H.R. 7587). This legislation would establish long-lasting structures and policies to tap the knowledge, trust and reach of nonprofits so we can make meaningful progress and ultimately increase our impact in the communities we serve because our voices will be heard more quickly.

This legislation will enable nonprofits to help shape policy that reflects a deeper understanding of community needs, which the public overwhelmingly supports. According to polling conducted by TargetPoint, 72 percent of Americans — with support spanning all income groups, political parties, and ages — agreed the government could better solve challenges facing local communities if charities and nonprofits were officially represented in the federal government.

Included in the bill is a proposed White House Office on Nonprofit Sector Partnership and an Interagency Council for the sector. These entities would open the door to better coordination with the federal government to help people and our nation’s diverse communities succeed. Much like the Small Business Administration, which was established in 1953 as a mechanism to improve the health of small businesses and grow the U.S. economy, this office could help nonprofits to fulfill their missions and help build healthier communities.

The legislation encourages accountability and transparency by setting up clear contact between legislators and nonprofit leaders — and the tens of millions of people they represent — to develop policy that is proactive and reactive but needed to strengthen communities. This is relevant as we continue to face challenges from the pandemic, natural disasters, economic disruption, racial inequity and diminishing trust in institutions.

The legislation also would improve the collection and reporting of nonprofit workforce data. As it stands, our nation’s workforce data systems are failing policymakers, nonprofits and the people who rely on them. Real-time, accurate information about the state of the sector’s workforce would allow policymakers to more effectively designate resources where they are most needed and to minimize barriers that result in reduced services.

Throughout the pandemic, nonprofits demonstrated how they are natural allies to the government by meeting urgent needs. First Tech Fund distributed laptops and WiFi hotspots to address the tech gap for students in need. In Denver, Kavod Senior Life housed hundreds of seniors, delivered more than 130,000 contactless meals, and hosted vaccination clinics. In D.C., foundations and individual donors distributed over $1 million in grants to support predominantly people of color-led arts organizations to sustain their work through COVID. 

Unfortunately, this partnership with the federal government is often sporadic and inefficient. The Nonprofit Sector Strength and Partnership Act of 2022 would help amplify the essential support of organizations such as March of Dimes, Children’s Aid, and thousands of other nonprofits to create targeted, sustainable change.

It’s time we had a seat at the table with the government — alongside the private sector — to share our valuable insights and help improve the lives of families and the health of communities, especially in times of need.

Stacey D. Stewart is president and CEO of March of Dimes. Phoebe Boyer is president and CEO of New York City-based Children’s Aid. Both serve on Independent Sector’s board of directors.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden officials detail maternal health crisis plan

The Biden administration has released a plan focused on addressing the country’s maternal health crisis, seeking to push states to extend postpartum Medicaid coverage and expand access to maternal services.

The U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation. Senior administration officials said the blueprint released Friday is aimed at combating that disparity, using various actions developed over 18 months and centered around equity.

The first priority of the White House blueprint encourages states to extend the required postpartum Medicaid coverage from 60 days of coverage to 12 months. An extension, officials said, means 720,000 women would gain coverage.

It would also include expanding access to services like doulas, midwives, lactation rooms and to a free national maternal mental health hotline. 

Another priority includes advanced data collection in maternal health risks and outcomes. 

As of now, the plan explains, maternal health data collection remains fragmented, making it difficult to know what solutions are needed. With improved data collection, researchers can “make improvements to support healthy pregnancies.”

The plan also calls for expanding and diversifying the perinatal workforce while strengthening economic and social support for people before, during and after pregnancy. 

Providers will receive “more robust” training from addiction services and learn how to deliver “culturally and linguistically appropriate care.”

The administration said it wants to also make it easier for people to enroll in federal programs for food, housing, childcare and income assistance. 

Vice President Harris will travel to Illinois on Friday with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Illinois Reps. Robin Kelly (D) and Lauren Underwood (D), co-chair of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, to speak more about the plan.

The maternal mortality crisis has been a top priority for Harris since her time in the Senate, with a particular focus on ending health care inequities for Black mothers at a time when Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related issues than white women. 

In 2018, Harris and Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.) introduced a congressional resolution recognizing Black Maternal Health Week. Harris has also been heavily involved in the push for the first “Momnibus” bill, which aims to end the health care inequities Black mothers face.

The president’s proposed budget for 2023, which includes $470 million for improving maternal health care and reducing disparities, comes amid broader uncertainty over women’s reproductive rights. The Supreme Court’s decision in case that could overturn Roe v. Wade is expected as early as Friday.

Officials say the president and vice president are dedicated to “developing a whole government approach” to the issue of reproductive rights and “the unprecedented attack on our constitutional rights.”

A senior administration official said Harris is committed to ensuring “women are protected in terms of their safety, health and well-being.”

“She fully believes that to ensure women have access to their full reproductive rights that also means women have access to maternal health care,” the official said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats cool to Biden's proposed gas tax holiday

President Biden’s push for a gas tax suspension amid soaring fuel prices is receiving a cool reception among Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Party leadership did not commit to taking up a gas tax moratorium, which requires an act of Congress, and the caucus remains largely divided on the issue. 

But, even if Democrats were unified, pausing the tax would face an uphill battle in the Senate because of Republican opposition. 

Biden on Wednesday officially endorsed the idea of a gas tax holiday – calling on Congress to suspend the 18-cent tax for 90 days — an attempt to offset high prices during the busy summer driving season.

But Congress does not seem to be heeding the call. Asked about gas tax suspension, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) indicated that the chamber would instead be focused on passing legislation targeting Big Oil. 

“Senate Democrats tried to pass it recently and it was blocked by Republicans,” Schumer said of the gas tax break. 

“I believe the most important thing we can do to lower gas prices is crack down on Big Oil’s manipulation of the oil markets,” he added. “We have legislation to do that and we’re going to focus on that issue.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also didn’t commit to anything, saying in a statement: “We will see where the consensus lies on a path forward for the President’s proposal in the House and the Senate.”

Pelosi has previously expressed concerns about a possible suspension of the gas tax, questioning whether the savings would actually get passed to consumers and expressing concerns that money would come out of the Highway Trust Fund, which helps pay for infrastructure.

“We have a situation where there’s money coming out of the Highway Trust Fund, it’s going to the oil companies, they may not give it to the consumer, and it has to be paid for. … That’s the con,” she said. 

On Wednesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said it wasn’t clear if the pause on the tax would have enough support to pass.

Democrats are split on the issue — and not along typically ideological lines. Centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) expressed skepticism Wednesday, telling ABC News, “I have great concern.”

He expressed worries about taking money out of the federal budget, whether the move would actually be effective and the political ramifications of reinstating the tax shortly before the November election. 

His qualms put him in a similar lane as the far more liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who told CNN “that’s not the approach I would use” when asked about the gas tax suspension. 

Lawmakers who are prominent voices on infrastructure have also expressed concerns, since the gas tax provides federal funds that are used to repair roads and bridges. 

And while the Biden administration has called for Congress to find other funding sources to make up for the lost revenue, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Tom Carper (D-Del.), whose committee has jurisdiction over the nation’s roads, was skeptical.

“Where would the money come from? And we just borrow more money?” he asked The Hill. “We’re issuing enough debt already.” 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)had previously described the move, as a “short-sighted proposal that relies on the cooperation of oil companies to pass on miniscule savings to consumers” in a statement to The Hill.

In his speech on Wednesday, Biden also addressed the idea that there might not be tremendous savings at the pump.

“I call on the companies to pass this along — every penny of this 18 cent reduction — to the consumers. There’s no time now for profiteering,” he said. 

Meanwhile, one of the most vocal supporters of a gas tax pause, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), was dissatisfied with the timeline Biden offered. 

“While I am encouraged that the President now supports a gas tax holiday, I continue to believe that we should seek to suspend the gas tax for at least the rest of the year, not just 90 days,” she said in a statement. 

Hassan is among the Senate Democrats facing a tough reelection battle this fall, with high inflation and fuel prices in particular proving a major political liability for the party.

Another key lawmaker, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over taxes, appeared at least to be open to the proposal.

“Americans are struggling to fill their gas tanks, and anything we can do to relieve the pain at the pump is worthwhile. I support all of President Biden’s efforts in this space,” he said in a statement.

But Wyden also noted that “suspending the gas tax isn’t a silver bullet, and it’s important to also look at policies like my excess profits tax.”

A committee spokesperson declined to comment on the panel’s schedule, including whether there are plans to take up gas tax legislation. 

Even if all of the Democrats would get on board, many Republicans have also expressed opposition, and it’s not clear whether Democrats would be able to find a way around the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. 

But asked about the gas tax holiday’s prospects on Wednesday, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said that the administration would try to convince Congress of its position.

“He’s going to be having these conversations with Democrats and Republicans. I would hope that both sides of the aisle are listening to their constituents about getting relief. I think the citizens will be the loudest voice…in the room,” she said during a White House press briefing. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: First phase of Jan. 6 hearings sharpens dangers for Trump

Five down, some more to go.

The first phase of the public hearings into the Jan. 6 hearings ended on Thursday, with dramatic testimony focused on the efforts by former President Trump and his allies to pressure the Department of Justice.

House Select Committee Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) says the hearings will now pause before resuming next month. 

The punctuation mark is the perfect moment to assess the impact of the five hearings so far.

They haven’t fundamentally altered the electoral landscape — but nobody really expected they would. 

Yet they have been compelling enough to surpass expectations, hold the attention of much of the public and cause new problems for Trump. 

The former president, predictably but tellingly, has lambasted the proceedings.

In aggregate, the hearings have portrayed Trump and his most fervid advisors as pushing a de facto coup while ignoring voluminous evidence that the 2020 election was untainted by any large-scale fraud.

The committee’s narrative has been uninterrupted by voices defending Trump. Its only Republican members are co-chair Rep. Liz Cheney (Wyo,.) and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) both of whom are strong critics of the former president.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) decision to pull GOP involvement from the committee at its inception last year is being subject to increased second-guessing.

McCarthy pulled the plug after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused to accept two especially staunch Trump allies, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Jim Banks (R-Ind.), as members of the panel.

But now people from Trump himself to Trump-skeptical Republicans regard that decision as a sizable strategic mistake.

“It was really stupid. It was a tremendous error,” said Liz Mair, a political consultant who has advised numerous GOP candidates and was previously the online communications director at the Republican National Committee.

“I am not in general a huge fan of the people who would have wanted on [as pro-Trump Republicans] but he is going to come out looking far worse than if they were there.”

Trump himself said in a recent interview with Punchbowl News that “it would have been very smart” to put Republicans supportive of him on the panel “to just have a voice.”

Instead the seven Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans on the panel have showcased a remarkable procession of moments.

Big TV audiences have seen a video clip of the former president’s elder daughter, Ivanka Trump, say she accepted the view of then-Attorney General Bill Barr that there was no significant election fraud. Barr himself has been shown several times referring to such claims as “bullshit.”

State-level Republican officials such as Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, have testified to the barrage of personal threats they received after resisting pressure to flip the election results in their states.

Private figures such as Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards and former elections worker Shaye Moss have given moving accounts of their experiences. 

At the first public hearing, watched by around 20 million people in primetime, Edwards recalled the “carnage” that she saw on Jan. 6. At Tuesday’s hearing, Moss recounted her distress when she and her mother were falsely accused of being involved in election fraud in Georgia.

The hearings writ large “have had a big substantive impact, even though so much of this happened in public,” said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.

“They have shown how much intentionality was behind an effort to overturn an election, how many people understood that this was just a campaign based on false information, and how this was all a more orchestrated effort than people thought, not just on Jan. 6 but through the whole thing.”

But Zelizer, like many others, is skeptical that the hearings will have a direct impact on the standing of the two major parties, even with the midterm elections little more than four months away.

The reasons are straightforward. 

Opinions about Trump and Jan. 6 are almost cast in concrete at this stage. Democratic voters already view him as directly culpable, and his staunchest loyalists never will.

In addition, a combination of a fragmented media environment and the fact that Trump is 17 months gone from office deprives these hearings of the kind of seismic impact the Watergate hearings had a half-century ago.

Still, there may be some impact around the edges.

An ABC News-Ipsos survey published on Sunday showed a modest increase in the number of Americans who believe Trump should be criminally charged for his behavior. The figure now stands at 58 percent, according to the poll, up from 52 percent in an ABC News-Washington Post poll in early May.

The Washington political world is also abuzz with talk about whether the hearings have damaged Trump as a potential 2024 GOP nominee.

The hearings have served as one more reminder of how much tumult and trauma the 45th president always brings in his wake. 

A New Hampshire poll on Wednesday, showing Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) edging ahead of Trump among likely GOP primary voters in the state, further fueled this speculation.

“There is a significant percentage of Republican voters — I would say 50 percent and maybe higher — who if you ask them if they approve of Donald Trump, they will say yes,” said GOP strategist Dan Judy. 

“If he is the only game in town, they will support him in 2024. But if there is anyone else out there who brings a little bit of the Trump style without that kind of baggage, they are very open to supporting such a person.”

Trump himself later Wednesday posted a poll to his favored social network, Truth Social, that showed him far ahead of DeSantis with Republicans nationwide.

As is so often the case with the former president, the supposed show of strength seemed to actually betray some vulnerability.

The former president has suffered some damage so far. 

Now, the question is whether the panel will deepen those wounds in its final hearings.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Dems toe delicate line on assault weapons ban

House Democratic leaders are toeing a delicate line with their promise to consider legislation this summer banning assault weapons — a politically explosive concept that divides both the Congress and the country.

The issue has been front-and-center in the national gun-reform debate following a recent string of high-profile mass shootings, including the May 14 massacre at a grocery store in Buffalo, N.Y., and another 10 days later at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 children and two teachers were killed. 

In both cases, a lone, 18-year-old gunman is alleged to have used a military-style semi-automatic rifle to target the victims, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has vowed to hold a hearing this summer on legislation to ban such weapons. She has not, however, promised a floor vote.

The concept is overwhelmingly popular in the Democratic Caucus — a proposal sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) has attracted 209 cosponsors — and liberals in the ranks are pressing the party brass to bring the legislation to the floor before November’s midterm elections. 

“I would love a chance to vote for it,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), “and I would love a chance to put others on record.”

But there’s a much smaller group of centrist Democrats, some of them facing tough reelection contests, who oppose banning a class of firearms that has emerged in recent years as among the most popular guns in the country. Most of those centrists voted earlier this month for a package of separate gun reforms — which included provisions to raise the age for assault weapons purchases and bolster state red flag laws — but are set against an assault weapons ban. 

“I don’t believe in bans on weapons,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who recently won a tight primary race against a progressive rival. “Do I believe in certain restrictions? Yes. But a ban on guns? No.”

Democrats have only a slim majority in the lower chamber, and the opposition from lawmakers like Cuellar have raised several questions governing the fate of the assault weapons ban. First, could such a bill pass in the House if leadership were to bring it to the floor? And second, would leadership keep it off of the floor, even if it does have the numbers to pass, in order to shield vulnerable lawmakers from a tough vote?

Cicilline, for his part, is watching closely and making clear where he stands. 

“As soon as we have the votes, I hope we’ll bring it to the floor,” he said. “We’re just a little bit short, but we’re getting very close.” 

Very close, indeed.

With five current vacancies in the House, supporters of the bill would need 216 votes to push it through. The list of 209 co-sponsors does not include Cicilline and at least two other likely supporters: Pelosi and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), a Vietnam veteran who leads the Democrats anti-gun violence task force. Together, they would bring the “yes” votes to 212.

“I have been on both ends of an assault weapon as a Vietnam combat veteran so I understand that these types of weapons have no place on our streets,” Thompson said Thursday. “Depending on the language, I would be inclined to vote for the bill.”

Another Democrat who has not signed on is Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore), who declined to comment. “We’ll see what happens,” he said. 

One Republican, Rep. Chris Jacobs (N.Y.), will support Cicilline’s bill if it hits the floor, his office confirmed this week. Another Republican, Reps. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.),  has also voiced support for the concept of a ban, but has not endorsed the Democrats’ proposal. His office did not respond to a request for comment. 

By Cicilline’s count, they are two votes short.

“These are weapons of war that were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible,” he said. “So we ought to have the ban back in effect.”

Fueling the push to pass the legislation are recent public opinion polls, which indicate strong support for an assault weapons ban in the wake of the Buffalo and Uvalde shootings. A Fox News survey released last week, for instance, found that 63 percent of Americans back the idea. 

Still, that popular support has done little to alter sentiments on Capitol Hill, where Republicans are near-unanimous in their opposition to the ban. Dismissing the Fox numbers, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) suggested the respondents were simply uninformed about what the proposal would do. 

“Constituents are asked poll questions. They’re not asked questions about specific language within legislative text,” he told Fox. 

The issue is especially fraught for incumbent Democrats in purple districts where Second Amendment rights are sacrosanct and tough new gun restrictions — even those proven popular by public opinion surveys — may lead to a backlash at the polls. 

“That’s definitely something that we need to be careful with,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, another South Texas Democrat. “I’m for responsible gun ownership, and there needs to be a balance between responsible gun ownership and just a straight-up ban.”

Liberals have other ideas, however, arguing that promoting public safety is more important than protecting assault weapons — or political careers — even if it means Democrats lose control of the House. 

“I’m not sympathetic,” said Huffman said of the leery centrists. “I think this issue is just far more important than whatever defensive politics they may be practicing. And honestly I think they’re afraid of a phantom backlash that’s not even real. The American people are with us on this.” 

Will it pass? “I don’t know,” Huffman said. “But I think everyone should have to put up that vote. Including people in my own party.” 

That restlessness has not gone unnoticed in the leadership ranks. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said last week that the bill “may well” be brought to the floor for a vote because “a number of members want it up on the floor.”

“The assault weapon bill, we know, can’t pass the Senate,” Hoyer acknowledged. “But … at some point in time that may well happen that we bring that bill forward for a vote, because people want to express themselves on it.”

Providing leadership some cover, even some vulnerable Democrats agree that the recent massacres should prompt Congress to ban assault weapons. 

“There is some question about whether we should take stuff up knowing that it’s not going anywhere in the Senate. But the other side of that coin is: People are getting killed out there,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), a liberal co-sponsor of Cicilline’s bill who’s been redistricted this year into a tougher district. 

“I know the politics sometimes are difficult — it might hurt me,” he continued. “But given everything that’s going on in the country, I wouldn’t let the politics get in the way of my vote.”

Pelosi, in a June 2 letter to fellow Democrats, touted the effectiveness of the assault weapons ban that was in place from 1994 to 2004, saying it was “proven to save lives.” She’s promised that the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the issue “soon.” 

Asked Wednesday when it might happen, Pelosi said, “When the committee decides.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who leads the Judiciary panel, said the issue is still on his radar, but no hearing date has been finalized. “I don’t know yet,” he said. 

Pelosi said House Democrats have been waiting for the Senate to finish with their gun reform negotiations, suggesting the assault weapons ban could distract from those efforts. 

That package, which includes provisions to expand background checks, fortify red flag laws and boost security and mental health programs at the nation’s schools, is expected to be approved by the Senate and House by the end of the week.

“That’s our focus right now,” Pelosi said. “And nobody wants to get in the way of [it].”

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi says House will take up gun safety bill 'first thing' Friday morning

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Thursday that the House will take up the Senate-passed gun safety bill “first thing” Friday morning, after the legislation cleared the upper chamber in a bipartisan vote.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the Floor. When the Rules Committee finishes its business, we will head immediately to the Floor,” Pelosi wrote in a statement minutes after the Senate approved the measure.

“And we will send the bill to President Biden for his signature, with gratitude for his leadership,” she added.

The Senate approved the legislation, dubbed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, in a 65-33 vote late Thursday night. Fifteen Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), joined all Democrats in approving the measure.

On Thursday night following the Senate vote, President Biden urged the House to “promptly vote” on the legislation “and send it to my desk.”

Earlier this month, after Senate negotiators released the framework for their firearm proposal, Biden signaled that he would sign the measure into law, writing in a statement “the sooner it comes to my desk, the sooner I can sign it, and the sooner we can use these measures to save lives.”

The gun safety bill, which clocked in at 80 pages, includes nine provisions to curb gun violence in response to last month’s mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.

The legislation calls for enhancing background checks for gun purchasers between the ages of 18 and 21, appropriating funds for red flag laws and other intervention programs, and closing the so-called boyfriend loophole by barring individuals from purchasing guns if they were convicted of a misdemeanor of violence against a current or former romantic partner.

It also bolsters the community mental health services pilot program, clarifies who is considered a gun dealer and strengthens penalties for individuals who traffic guns or obtain them through straw purchases.

The vote, which is likely to pass because Democrats hold the majority in the House, will cap off weeks of negotiations between members of both parties that began after the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde.

Ten Black individuals were fatally shot at a grocery store in Buffalo last month. Then, 10 days later, a gunman killed 19 students and two adults at an elementary school in Uvalde.

The planned House vote comes exactly one month after the Uvalde shooting.

Earlier this month, the House passed a sweeping gun package that called for raising the minimum age to buy a semi-automatic weapon from 18 to 21 and banning high-capacity magazines. The chamber also approved a measure to nationalize red flag laws, which seek to keep guns away from individuals deemed a threat to themselves and others.

The House vote is already shaping up to be bipartisan — on Wednesday, Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas), who represents the district that includes Uvalde, said he will vote for the measure.

Source: TEST FEED1