Categories Uncategorized

McConnell, GOP give political payback to Manchin

Senate Republicans on Tuesday gave Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) a taste of political payback by forcing Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to cancel a scheduled vote on Manchin’s permitting reform bill. 

The message to Manchin is clear: Republicans are still furious over the surprise deal he cut with Schumer this summer to pass major pieces of the Democratic agenda. 

Manchin in a statement said it was “unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk”  

Schumer announced Tuesday afternoon that Manchin had agreed to pull his permitting reform bill off a short-term government funding measure once it became clear that Republicans would block the package.  

“Senate Republicans have made very clear they will block legislation to fund the government if it includes bipartisan permitting reform. Because they’ve chosen to obstruct instead of work in a bipartisan way … I have agreed to move forward and pass the recently filed continuing resolution legislation without the Energy Independence and Security Act,” Schumer announced. 

A procedural motion to advance the government funding measure, which will last through Dec. 16, was set to pass easily after Schumer removed Manchin’s permitting reform language.  

Schumer made the announcement a few hours after Manchin traveled to his office in the Capitol early Tuesday afternoon.  

As he walked away from Schumer’s office, Manchin still insisted that he was “feeling good,” perhaps in anticipation that he would have a chance to negotiate with Republicans on a revised permitting reform bill that could move as stand-alone legislation.  

In a statement released a few hours later, Manchin said: “I stand ready to work with my colleagues to move forward on this critical legislation to meet the challenges of delivering affordable reliable energy Americans desperately need.”  

The fate of Manchin’s permitting reform bill was sealed after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stood up on the Senate floor to slam it as a “poison pill” and “permitting reform in name only” and urge Republicans to vote “no.”  

“It was written to drain the political will for actual reform without creating any meaningful change that liberal special interests might actually dislike,” McConnell said.  

He argued that Manchin’s bill would move permitting reform in the wrong direction by giving the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to overrule state sovereignty to direct the construction of energy transmission lines it decides are in the nation’s interest.  

“What our Democratic colleagues have produced is a phony fig leaf that would actually set back the cause of real permitting reform,” he said. “Amazingly our Democratic colleagues have managed to write language that would actually — listen to this — make things even worse.”  

McConnell and his leadership team had urged GOP senators over the past week to instead support a more comprehensive permitting reform bill sponsored by Manchin’s home-state colleague, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). 

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of McConnell’s leadership team, said Manchin miscalculated by assuming that Republicans would vote for his permitting reform deal without having a chance to negotiate the details of the final draft.

He previously noted that Republicans were not in a mood to hand Manchin a political victory after he surprised them in July by announcing a surprise deal to set a 15 percent corporate minimum tax, spend hundreds of billions of dollars on climate programs and give Medicare new power to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry.  

“I think he thought he was going to pass a bill and get it signed into law and he, I think, miscalculated,” Cornyn said. “By springing this on people and by making it purely a partisan [play].” 

Manchin did so, Cornyn indicated, by voting for the Inflation Reduction Act in August and then expecting his permitting bill to be approved.

Tuesday’s vote leaves uncertain whether Congress will have another chance to pass permitting reform, a long-held Republican priority, in the next few years.  

Manchin predicted in a Fox News interview Monday that if his bill died, permitting reform would not pass Congress in the foreseeable future.  

He also admitted that McConnell’s opposition to his permitting reform bill caught him by surprise. He said he expected the intense opposition of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), House progressives and liberal-leaning environmental justice groups.  

“I never did think I’d have Bernie and some of the extreme far-left,” he said. “What I didn’t expect is that Mitch McConnell and my Republican friends would be sacking up with Bernie or trying to get the same outcome by not passing permitting reform.”

Manchin worked furiously to round up enough Republican support for his bill, even in the final hours before Tuesday’s vote, but in the end couldn’t break McConnell’s grip on the GOP conference.  

Cornyn said Manchin can still pass permitting reform if he’s willing to work with Capito on a stronger permitting reform package. 

He suggested a revised bill could be attached to the annual defense authorization bill or another piece of must-pass legislation before the end of the year.  

“My hope would be that Sen. Capito has expressed an interest in working with him to reconcile the differences between her permitting bill and his in a way that gains bipartisan support,” he said. “If Sen. Schumer is serious about it and sincere, then he can facilitate a bipartisan permitting bill.”  

Capito introduced a more ambitious permitting reform bill earlier this month.  

It would codify the Trump administration’s National Environmental Policy Act regulations, expedite the permitting and review processes and set up a framework for timely approvals of energy projects.  

Schumer’s decision to split permitting reform off the short-term government funding bill eases fears of a possible government shutdown at the end of the week.  

McConnell urged Democrats to bring a short-term funding measure without Manchin’s permitting language to the Senate floor instead, which he said Republicans would support. 

“Both sides of the aisle want to prevent a government shutdown that no one wants,” he said.  

By forcing Schumer to pull Manchin’s bill off the floor, Republicans handed a victory to Senate and House progressives who had pressured their leaders to separate permitting reform and government funding.  

“In the midst of the horrific climate crisis that we face, the last thing we need is a side deal which would build more pipelines and fossil fuel projects that would have substantially increased carbon emissions. This is a victory for the survival of the planet and a major loss for the fossil fuel industry,” Sanders said in a statement reacting to Schumer’s announcement. 

More than 70 House Democrats signed a letter calling for Manchin’s bill to be dropped from the continuing resolution. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin asks Schumer to cut permitting from spending bill

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Tuesday asked for permitting reform changes he has been pushing to be cut from a stopgap funding bill as its passage appeared doomed amid bipartisan opposition. 

Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Manchin had previously agreed to include the reforms to the approval process for energy infrastructure in the stopgap funding bill, called a continuing resolution, as a condition of his support last month for Democrats’ climate, tax and health care bill. 

But several Republicans objected to how that deal came together and also said the language did not go far enough. Progressives also opposed it for environmental reasons.

“It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk. The last several months, we have seen firsthand the destruction that is possible as Vladimir Putin continues to weaponize energy,” Manchin said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon.

“A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the Continuing Resolution we will vote on this evening.”

The Senate is set to vote on a motion to proceed to a House-passed “shell” bill that Schumer hopes to use as a legislative vehicle to pass a government funding bill.

Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Manchin permitting reform cut from spending bill

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Tuesdasy asked Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to remove permitting reform language from a stopgap government funding bill, bowing to the reality that there was too much opposition to the measure.

Republicans in the Senate along with Democrats in the House had voiced opposition to the language, and Senate Democrats did not appear to have the 60 votes necessary to proceed.

Liberals disliked the measure for policy reasons. Republicans also voiced policy disagreements, but many also said they didn’t want to provide Manchin with a big political win.

Schumer, in a floor speech, blamed Republicans for the measure’s failure.

“Senate Republicans have made clear they will block legislation to fund the government if it includes bipartisan permitting reform, because they’ve chosen to obstruct instead of work in a bipartisan way to achieve something they’ve long claimed they want to do,” Schumer said, according to a transcript of his remarks. 

“Because American families should not be subjected to a Republican-manufactured government shutdown, Sen. Manchin has requested, and I have agreed, to move forward and pass the recently filed continuing resolution legislation without the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022,” he said. 

In his own statement, Manchin did not explicitly blame either party, saying “It is unfortunate that members of the United States Senate are allowing politics to put the energy security of our nation at risk.”

“A failed vote on something as critical as comprehensive permitting reform only serves to embolden leaders like Putin who wish to see America fail. For that reason and my firmly held belief that we should never come to the brink of a government shutdown over politics, I have asked Majority Leader Schumer to remove the permitting language from the continuing resolution we will vote on this evening,” he added. 

Schumer and Manchin had previously agreed to include the reforms in the stopgap funding bill, called a continuing resolution, as a condition of Manchin’s support for Democrats’ climate, tax and health care bill, the Inflation Reduction Act.

That larger piece of legislation was signed into law in August after Manchin’s dramatic announcement of the deal with Schumer.

But the political win left a bad taste with Senate Republicans.

Republicans said they felt betrayed after Manchin and Schumer announced an agreement on the Inflation Reduction Act, which was moved under special rules sidestepping a filibuster.

GOP senators had threatened to oppose a bipartisan semiconductor bill if Democrats moved forward with the larger bill. The deal between Schumer and Manchin was announced shortly after the semiconductor bill was passed by the Senate, providing a sting to the GOP.

The changes to the environmental inspection process also met resistance from progressives, who argued that it would speed up the production of fossil fuels and undercut important reviews for projects that could cause pollution and harm local communities.

Dozens of House Democrats had voiced their opposition to the language.

The spending bill is now likely to move through the Senate and House this week.

What happens next with Schumer’s promise to Manchin is much less clear.

Lawmakers may try to add it to a different piece of legislation later this year, but this month’s stalemate shows that won’t be easy.

Manchin’s proposal would have sought to speed up the timeline for environmental reviews, required the president to select 25 priority projects to be expedited and given the federal government more authority over electric transmission lines. 

It also was expected to secure the approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Manchin’s home state. 

Some of the permitting reform opponents celebrated its removal from the funding bill. 

“All across the country, poor communities, communities of color, and Indigenous communities have been repeatedly burned by polluting industries’ shortcuts and broken promises. Having to vote for a bill that would worsen that status quo by gutting public input and fast-tracking dangerous projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline would have been unconscionable,” said a statement from Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) who led progressive opposition in the House. 

“I look forward to voting on a clean Continuing Resolution to keep our government open. There is a lot of work to do to keep moving forward with the Biden administration’s momentum on tackling climate change and environmental injustices. We don’t have time to waste on unnecessary shutdown standoffs,” he added. 

Updated at 5:50 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

McConnell backs Senate's Electoral Count Act bill

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said on Tuesday that he supports the Electoral Count Reform Act, which aims to protect future elections by making changes to the 1887 Electoral College Act.

McConnell’s support gives a big boost to the legislation backed by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), which is aimed at responding in part to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. That took place as Congress was trying to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

“I strongly support the Collins legislation as introduced, and assuming that we make no changes here today, or at the most technical changes, I’ll be proud to vote for it and to help advance it,” McConnell said in a floor speech prior to the Rules Committee markup of the bill.

McConnell is taking on former President Trump by backing the bill. Trump has pressed Republicans to oppose the legislation, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) voted against a House version of the bill approved last week.

The Electoral Count Reform Act would clarify some procedures described by the 1887 law, including the roles of state and federal governments in verifying the election of a president.

Specifically, the act introduces reforms to recognize a single, conclusive slate of electors in each state, declare that the vice president’s role in the election is “solely ministerial” and raises the threshold for objecting to a state’s Electoral College results.

These changes would make it more difficult to make the kinds of challenges to the 2020 presidential election that took place on Jan. 6. On that day, after weeks in which Trump had insisted without evidence that the election had been stolen from him, a mob invaded the Capitol, forcing the evacuation of lawmakers and then-Vice President Pence.

Many in the mob thought Pence could stop the results of the certification of the Electoral College by a joint session of Congress. The law also allows one member of the House and one member of the Senate from a state’s congressional delegation to object to their state’s Electoral College results, which forces votes by the full House and Senate on the objection.

The newly introduced bill results from recommendations made by the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

Its text addresses multiple issues at the forefront of the 2020 presidential election, including the vice president’s authority in certifying elections and the roles of state governors and electors.

The House bill that was approved in a 229-203 vote last week is known as the Presidential Election Reform Act.

The nine Republicans who backed the bill included the two members of the party on the Jan. 6 committee, Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), as well as others who have been critical of the 2021 insurrection.

The Senate and House proposals differ in a few ways, including a provision in the House bill specifying that only scenarios like natural disasters qualify as a “catastrophic event” that could delay an election.

McConnell referred to the House bill as a “non-starter” in his speech on Tuesday but did not explain why he took that view.

Source: TEST FEED1

House Jan. 6 panel postpones hearing as Hurricane Ian barrels toward Florida

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol has postponed its Wednesday hearing as Hurricane Ian prepares to make landfall in Florida.

“In light of Hurricane Ian bearing down on parts of Florida, we have decided to postpone tomorrow’s proceedings. We’re praying for the safety of all those in the storm’s path. The Select Committee’s investigation goes forward and we will soon announce a date for the postponed proceedings,” Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in a joint statement.

The last-minute shift comes as the panel was gearing up for what could be its final public hearing.

In a departure from prior hearings where one or two members were primarily responsible for walking through evidence and witness questions, in Wednesday’s hearing, each member of the panel was slated to have a role.

The district of committee member Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) is in the path of the hurricane.

Members of the panel had been tight-lipped about what would be revealed in the final hearing, with many acknowledging they were struggling with how to compile an overwhelming amount of information.

“I think it’ll be potentially more sweeping than some of the other hearings,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said over the weekend.

The delay comes as Ian is likely to dominate the news cycle.

The panel had scheduled the hearing for 1 p.m. — bypassing the opportunity to seek another prime-time slot in favor of holding an event that would be broadcast on Fox News, which has refused to suspend its evening programming for the committee’s work.

“In the past, Fox News does play our hearings if the hearing is in the daytime,” Rep. Zoe Logran (D-Calif.) said during a Sunday night appearance on CNN. “That’s a factor in reaching an audience that is not watching CNN.”

—Updated at 4 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Why Hurricane Ian poses a unique threat to Tampa Bay

Hurricane Ian would pose particular risks to the city of Tampa and the Tampa Bay area if it lands there due to the Gulf Coast’s geography, rising sea levels and lagging resilience planning.   

The storm made landfall on the west coast of Cuba in the early hours of Tuesday morning shortly after becoming a major hurricane, then entered the Gulf of Mexico.  

The bulk of Florida’s west coast, including the Tampa Bay area, is currently under a storm surge warning, and several counties have issued mandatory or voluntary evacuations.  

Pinellas County, home to nearly 1 million people, ordered everyone living in particularly vulnerable low-lying areas to evacuate Monday evening.  

The region has not seen a major hurricane in a century. That 1921 storm, a Category 3, killed at least eight people.  

Since then, a 2013 World Bank study named Tampa the seventh most vulnerable coastal city to damages from flooding and the fourth most vulnerable U.S. city. 

Two years later, a report from catastrophe modelers Karen Clark and Co. deemed Tampa the single most vulnerable city to storm surge flooding in the country, projecting damages to residential, commercial and industrial properties from a hypothetical 100-year hurricane to be about $175 billion.   

In the 100 years since its last major hurricane, the city’s population grew nearly 400 percent, from 51,000 to just under 396,000 people. The 2015 report notes that about 50 percent of the city’s population lives in low-lying areas, with ground elevations of under 10 feet.  

The wider Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater area has a population of about 3 million, and much of the region is linked by causeways and bridges that are particularly susceptible to flooding, said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with Yale Climate Connections.  

“These people don’t have much hurricane experience, so they’ve been very lucky over the past 100 years,” Masters said. “So you combine the vulnerability with the high population that’s inexperienced, and you have a situation that’s among the worst for any major city in the U.S.”  

Experts say the Tampa area’s geography makes it particularly vulnerable to even a weaker storm. The city is located along the Gulf of Mexico and has an unusually far-reaching continental shelf.  

“The waters are kind of shallow for hundreds of miles going into the Gulf, which really worsens the storm surge possibilities and impacts as this wall of wind and water [is] moving toward land,” said Aris Papadopoulos, the founder and chair of the Resilience Action Fund and distinguished expert of resilience at Florida International University.  

The shallow waters and the “U” shape of the Gulf Coast can create an effect that intensifies the storm as it nears the shore.   

“Near the shore and the Gulf of Mexico, it just piles up,” Masters said. “And then when you get to Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay is pretty much funnel shaped. So that acts to concentrate the water that’s been piled up even further.”  

“We’re looking at a case where we … not only have a large storm surge that’s most likely to hit a broad swath of the region, but also a prolonged and protracted rainfall,” said Chris Uejio, an associate professor of geography at Florida State University. The combination of the two, he said, could lead to “flooding that we haven’t seen in the modern era.”  

A slight variation in the path of the hurricane could lessen much of the danger, according to Masters.  

“If the hurricane hits just to the south of Tampa Bay, they are not going to get a massive, destructive storm surge, because the winds are going to be blowing offshore, blowing the water out of Tampa Bay,” Masters said. “But if the hurricane hits just north of town, then that’s when you get this 5- to 10-foot storm surge that the [National] Hurricane Center was forecasting.”  

Recent revisions, he noted, are projecting 5 to 8 feet and a landfall south of Tampa, he added, but “just a small variation in track could change things because the hurricane’s coming in at kind of an angle to the coast, so it’s a difficult forecast situation, and it makes all the difference where the storm hits.”  

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) specifically noted the “sensitivity … and fragility of this area” in a news conference Monday. Uejio told The Hill much of the population at greatest risk will be older residents and people with medical conditions, particularly those who rely on electricity for their medical needs.  

Moreover, spiraling rents have increased the area’s homeless population, another group that will struggle to find shelter from extreme weather, he noted.  

The Tampa Bay region has seen major sea level rises over the decade due to climate change, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), compounding the vulnerability to major storms.   

NOAA measurements of St. Petersburg sea levels found they have risen about 2.97 millimeters a year since 1947, equivalent to just under a foot per 100 years.  

The pace appears to have quickened since around 1990. A 2019 analysis by the Tampa Bay Climate Science Advisory Panel projected that based on these trends, the level is set to rise 1 to 2.5 feet by 2050 and between 2 to 8.5 feet by the end of the century.  

Papadopoulos added that much of the northern parts of the state have structures that predate the more stringent hurricane codes the south adopted after Hurricane Andrew in 1992.  

Metropolitan areas like Miami-Dade, he said, “can face a Category 5 hurricane impact, but in the Tampa area and other parts of Florida, they’re still at levels for Category 2, maybe Category 3 in some locations.”  

“We’re gambling, essentially, with nature by saying well, the probability is lower and so we’ll take a chance and lower the standards,” he added. “I think that’s an unwise gamble, today and definitely much more as we go into the future.”  

Source: TEST FEED1

US mobilizes allies to reject Russian annexation effort amid nuclear threats

The U.S. and its allies are mobilizing the international community to reject Russian attempts to annex territory in Ukraine, in a move that Kyiv hopes will spur greater military support to deliver Moscow a decisive battlefield defeat.  

Hawkish supporters of Ukraine say now is the time for the U.S., Europe and NATO to increase the delivery of heavy artillery, tanks and war planes to Kyiv despite nuclear weapons threats by Russian President Vladimir Putin.  

Putin is under pressure in Russia because of the battlefield misfires and the chaotic rollout of his mobilization order for 300,000 troops. The Ukrainian military’s stunning counteroffensive in the northeast led Putin to move to mobilize more troops, which has received a negative reaction in Russia.  

William Taylor, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and vice president of the Russia and Europe program at the U.S. Institute of Peace, said the news is helping the U.S. effort.  

“My bet is that the [global] reaction would be to double down on support for the Ukrainians on the battlefield,” he said. “The Russians have a big manpower problem and now’s the time for the Ukrainians, reinforced by these weapons … to allow them to break through the Russian lines and push the Russians out.” 

Ukraine’s ambassador to the United Nations, Sergiy Kyslytsya, told CBS News on Monday that the international community needs to speed up the supply of weapons.  

He specifically called for the delivery of weapons to protect Ukraine’s airspace, adding that Russia is “impotent when it comes to the offensive on the ground” but that the missile threat needs to be eliminated.   

“I have never had any doubt that Ukraine will militarily defeat Russia on Ukrainian territory,” he said.   

The U.S. and United Kingdom have warned that what they call “sham” votes in four Ukrainian territories are an effort to annex Ukrainian territory while justifying the war to the Russian public.  

The U.K. Ministry of Defense tweeted on Tuesday that Putin is likely to use an address to the Russian Parliament on Friday “to formally announce the accession of the occupied regions of Ukraine to the Russian Federation.”   

“Russia’s leaders almost certainly hope that any accession announcement will be seen as a vindication of the ‘special military operation’ and will consolidate patriotic support for the conflict,” the ministry tweeted.  

There have been multiple reports of opposition to Putin’s military mobilization order, with angry protests popping up in Russia’s far-flung territories, a shooting at an enlistment center in a Siberian city and reports of long queues of military-age men looking to flee the country.   

The U.K. on Monday announced sanctions against 92 Russian officials and entities it says are involved in carrying out the referendums.  

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Tuesday that the U.S. is readying sanctions if Russia moves forward on annexation.

“We are prepared and we will impose additional severe and swift costs on Russia for proceeding with the annexations,” he said during a press conference on Tuesday.  

“Ukraine has the absolute right to defend itself throughout its territory, including to take back the territory that has been illegally seized, one way or another, by Russia,” he added. “The weapons that we and many other countries are providing have been used very effectively to do just that.” 

Israel, which has maintained strategic ties with Moscow despite its invasion of Ukraine, released a statement Tuesday rejecting any results from the referendums.  

Taylor said the international community needs to follow up statements of anger with stronger military support.  

“All these expressions of outrage, of rejection, sanctions — that’s important to do, and it does send a message, but what’s really going to send a message, what really needs to happen, is the Ukrainians need to be able to push [the Russians] out of those places where they’re doing these referendum, pushing them out of these four provinces,” he said.  

The U.S. has so far provided Ukraine with $15 billion in security assistance, and lawmakers on Tuesday earmarked an additional $12.3 billion for Ukraine, included in draft text funding the government through December.   

But Ukrainian officials are frustrated that European powers with significant military reserves — Germany, France and Italy, specifically — have not matched commitments by the U.S., the U.K. and even the Baltic states, which are proportional to their size and military budgets.  

An analysis by the Kiel Institute for World Economy put the U.S. as the number one donor for arms and equipment to Ukraine — citing about $24 billion in commitments between January and August 3 — compared to pledges from Germany that equal about $1.2 billion.  

France has committed less than $800 million in military assistance, and Italy around $200 million, according to the tracker, though it has counted $2.4 billion in military commitments from European Union institutions.

Frustrations appear to be roiling in Berlin, where opposition lawmakers are demanding German Chancellor Olaf Scholz immediately send German tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine. 

Politico Europe reported heated and inflammatory debate within Germany’s Bundestag last week over the need to increase, and quickly, military supplies to Ukraine.   

“If, in the light of mass graves in Bucha and Izyum, we are serious in saying: ‘Never again! Germany must ensure that something never happens again’ — then we have to go a decisive step further here,” parliamentarian Johann Wadephul, deputy chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, reportedly said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Virginia students begin walkouts over Youngkin transgender policy

Story at a glance

• Thousands of Virginia students left their classrooms Tuesday morning and afternoon to protest a set of model policies that would roll back certain protections for transgender youth in the state.

• Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration this month released draft policies that would bar transgender students from using the restroom that matches their gender identity and require parents to consent to their child changing their name or pronouns at school.

• A public comment period on the model policies began Sep. 26 and will run through Oct. 26. At least 17,000 comments have already been collected.

Thousands of Virginia students walked out of their classrooms Tuesday to protest Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s (R) proposed model transgender policies that would restrict which restrooms the state’s transgender students are allowed to use and would require parents to consent to their child changing their name or pronouns at school.

The draft policies published earlier this month have been criticized for singling out transgender youth, who are already more likely than lesbian, gay and bisexual young people to report poor mental health and less likely to identify their home or school as a gender-affirming space.

Several Virginia school districts have released statements voicing concerns about the new model policies and have promised to protect transgender students through enforcement of existing nondiscrimination laws. Students from more than 100 Virginia schools last week announced plans to walk out of class Tuesday morning through the afternoon to protest the policies.

“We decided to hold these walkouts as kind of a way to … disrupt schools and essentially have students be aware of what’s going on,” Natasha Sanghvi, a northern Virginia high school senior who helped organize the walkouts, told the Associated Press on Tuesday.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

The new model policies would replace existing measures adopted by former Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration that allow transgender students to use school facilities like restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity and requires teachers to accept a transgender student’s name and pronouns even without consent from the student’s family.

Sanghvi told the AP that the current policies have helped students across Virginia feel affirmed in their gender identities at school, and repealing them would have the potential to harm “every single queer student in the state of Virginia.”

Footage captured by other outlets show crowds of students protesting across northern Virginia, the Richmond and Hampton Roads regions and several smaller districts in rural areas of the state. Some students waved Progress Pride flags and homemade signs supporting transgender rights.

In a statement to Changing America, Macaulay Porter, a spokeswoman for Youngkin, said under the proposed guidelines, Virginia schools will be able to accommodate the requests of children and their families. but only when parents are part of the process.

The current policies from Northam’s administration have drawn criticism from parents and some school boards for “removing” parents from the equation.

“Parents should be a part of their children’s lives, and it’s apparent through the public protests and on-camera interviews that those objecting to the guidance already have their parents as part of that conversation,” Porter said. “While students exercise their free speech today, we’d note that these policies state that students should be treated with compassion and schools should be free from bullying and harassment. ”

A public comment period on Youngkin’s model transgender policies began Sep. 26 and will run through Oct. 26. At least 17,000 comments have already been logged, many in opposition. The state Department of Education will then review the responses and the state superintendent will either approve or deny the policies.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Source: TEST FEED1

Group sues to block Biden's student loan forgiveness plan

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the Department of Education over its new student loan cancellation policy, becoming the first organization to challenge the Biden administration’s move to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt per borrower.

The federal lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, contends that Biden’s decision to cancel student loan debt for some borrowers is illegal because Congress, which holds the power of the purse, did not approve it.

“It’s flagrantly illegal for the executive branch to create a $500 billion program by press release,” said PLF attorney Caleb Kruckenberg in a statement. “And without statutory authority or even the basic notice and comment procedure for new regulations.”

The Hill has reached out to the Education Department for comment.

President Biden announced in August his administration would cancel up to $10,000 in student loan debt per borrower making under $125,000 per year and $20,000 for recipients of the Pell Grant relief program for lower-income borrowers.

The administration, anticipating legal challenges, cited the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for
Students (Heroes) Act of 2003 as a justification to cancel the student loans.

That law says the Education Department may waive or modify statutes or provisions related to student financial assistance programs during war or national emergencies, with the COVID-19 pandemic being a justification for debt cancellation.

The PLF lawsuit says the cancellation policy is illegal under the Heroes Act because it is not “necessary” nor targeted at any harms caused by the national emergency.

The organization’s lawsuit is filed on behalf of plaintiff Frank Garrison, a public interest lawyer with the PLF who is paying off his federal student loans through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

Garrison says he is set to pay off his debt in roughly four years, but as a Pell Grant recipient he would have his debt wiped out under Biden’s order. If that happens, he would face a state income liability tax of around $1,000, which he would otherwise not have to pay if Biden did not cancel his debt.

Indiana has a provision in state law that treats debt cancellation as income and thus taxes it, the Indy Star reported.

The PLF seeks an injunction halting the cancellation policy from going into effect and a judgment preventing any further action to cancel student loan debt.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday the cost of the cancellation policy is around $400 billion, although that figure is in dispute from proponents of loan debt cancellation.

About 43 million borrowers share $1.6 trillion in federal student loan debt. Biden campaigned on canceling a portion of student debt.

Republicans have slammed the loan cancellation policy as a handout to wealthier Americans and an expensive policy.

Steve Simpson, an attorney at the PLF, said canceling loan debt was “unjust to those who have paid their loans or never took any.”

“Loan cancellation will make Americans more divided, as those who paid their loans — or never went to college — will have good reason to think that we no longer have a government of, by, and for the people,” Simpson said in a statement.

Source: TEST FEED1

Kaine to vote against Manchin permitting bill

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine (D) announced Tuesday morning that he will vote against a motion to begin debate on Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-W.Va.) permitting reform bill, dealing a blow to Manchin’s hopes of passing the measure.

Kaine said he will vote against a motion to proceed to a legislative vehicle that Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) plans to use to advance a short-term government funding measure and Manchin’s permitting reform legislation.  

Kaine is opposing Manchin’s bill because it would approve completion of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, 100 miles of which runs through Virginia, and shift jurisdiction over legal challenges to the project from the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals to the D.C. Circuit.  

“I strongly oppose the Mountain Valley Pipeline provision of this legislation, which would greenlight this pipeline without normal administrative and judicial review and ignore the voices of Virginians,” Kaine said in a statement.  

He noted the pipeline would seize property from private landowners and that he was not consulted on the bill’s language or given a chance to share his constituents “deep concerns” over the project.  

He also criticized the bill for it removing the 4^th Circuit from the legal battle over the pipeline.  

“If the MVP owners are unhappy with a court ruling, they should do what other litigants do and appeal. Allowing them to fundamentally change federal law to achieve their goal would surely encourage other wealthy people and companies to try the same. I won’t participate in opening that door to abuse and even corruption,” Kaine said.  

Kaine issued his statement a few days after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) circulated a “Dear Colleague” urging senators to vote against the combined funding resolution and permitting reform package.  

Kaine’s opposition to beginning debate on the House “shell” bill, which is being viewed as a test vote for Manchin’s permitting reform, could open the door for other Democratic defections.  

Schumer agreed to attach Manchin’s bill to the end-of-September continuing resolution as part of a deal to secure the centrist senator’s vote for the Inflation Reduction Act in August.  

That bill established a 15 percent corporate minimum tax, provided $369 billion to combat climate change and gave Medicare the power to negotiate lower drug prices, accomplishing several of President Biden’s top priorities.  

The deal with Schumer infuriated Republicans so Manchin’s permitting bill is not expected to secure the dozen or so GOP votes it needs to overcome a filibuster.  

Senate Republican leadership, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), are urging their GOP colleagues not to support Manchin’s bill, which means he has a slim chance of mustering enough Republican support.  

Manchin suffered a setback Monday night when Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and a McConnell ally, announced he would vote against the stop-gap spending measure unveiled by his own panel because it includes Manchin’s permitting reform. 

“We have made significant progress toward a Continuing Resolution that is as clean as possible.  But, if the Democrats insist on including permitting reform, I will oppose it,” Shelby announced Monday. 

Source: TEST FEED1