Tag Archives : Build House

Nine injured in shooting at Cincinnati bar

Nine people were injured in a shooting outside a bar in Cincinnati early Sunday, officials said. 

Cincinnati Police Department (CPD) Assistant Chief Michael John told reporters that the shooting victims were transported to a nearby medical facility, adding that none were in critical condition. 

John also said that an officer fired one shot at a suspect during the incident in the city’s Over-The-Rhine neighborhood.

“We have one Cincinnati police officer that discharged one round, and we do not know if that officer struck the individual that he was firing the gun at,” John said at the news conference. “What I can tell you is the individual he was shooting at was actively firing a firearm at that time.”

“We know that a lot of people left the scene that may have seen something,” John said. “We’re looking for any witness statements we can get. So, if somebody has something — if they have video footage, something on their phone — of course we would want to use that to see if we can ascertain exactly how this event evolved.”

The Hill has reached out to the Cincinnati Police Department for more information on the incident. 

John added that two people were injured in another shooting in the city’s Central Business District.

Source: TEST FEED1

Implementing the PACT Act is veterans’ next battle

Veterans clinched a victory after the Senate passed a bill that would expand medical coverage for former service members with toxic exposures.  

But after a long fought battle with no shortage of last-minute drama, their work is far from over.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must now implement the legislation efficiently amid concerns of the department’s poor track record and existing backlogs. 

President Biden is expected to sign into law the Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act on Wednesday, which will expand access to VA health care and benefits for veterans who were exposed to toxins during war. 

The VA is already encouraging veterans to apply for benefits. But moving forward, veterans service organizations and other experts say the department will have to buckle down if it wants to implement the legislation as smoothly as possible.  

“What this bill is authorizing is the core mission of what the Department of Veteran Affairs is there for and should be doing,” said David Shulkin, who served as VA secretary from March 2017 through February 2018. 

“That means that the VA should be prioritizing taking care of these particular veterans. And when the agency or any organization has finite resources — which every organization has, even the US government — it requires that you prioritize what you’re working on,” he continued. 

Shulkin said if he were still running the agency, he would personally take responsibility to ensure that it gets implemented smoothly. 

“In the agency as big as the VA, what I found was that one thing that leadership can do is be clear about its priorities, and when that happens, great things can happen in this organization,” he said. 

 “Now, there are a lot of competing priorities. But because this is a group of people that for whatever reason, we have been making wait — literally for decades, in many cases —I believe that gives them the right to be prioritized.” 

The PACT Act seeks to expand VA benefits eligibility to more than 3.5 million veterans who were exposed to toxins during their military service — including illnesses resulting from exposures to toxic burns and Agent Orange. 

It also adds 23 conditions to the department’s list of presumptive illnesses, meaning that veterans don’t have to prove that their illness was due to military service. 

But despite passage of the bill, some Republicans raised concerns with how the VA will go about implementing the legislation. 

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) tweeted that there were 168,000 veterans “waiting in line” for care, and that the number would spike to one million with the PACT Act.  

Patrick Murray, director of national legislative service at Veterans of Foreign Wars, said that while the department is dealing with a backlog of claims, this alone should not be a reason against the legislation. 

“Veterans would rather stand in line than not have a line at all,” Murray said. “And if they don’t want to do anything for veterans until we get rid of a backlog? Then we will never do anything for veterans, period.” 

Cory Titus, director of Veteran Benefits and Guard/Reserve Affairs for the Military Officers Association of America, noted that the measure would increase the VA’s workload, but the legislation is written in a way where certain provisions are phased in over time. 

“They slowly turn on the faucet and start off with smaller population groups that will allow VA to kind of build into it,” Titus said. “And while they’re doing that VA has a simultaneous track where they’re working on adding people to help with the claims process.” 

But there are other concerns with how the legislation will be implemented once it is signed into law. 

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said he was concerned the bill would limit access to outside physicians should veterans seek care outside the VA. 

John Berry, a veteran’s attorney based in Nebraska, said that some are concerned with how quickly claims will be processed. 

“The VA has done great things over the years to improve that speed. But a veteran will file a claim and sometimes they will not provide sufficient evidence and then they have to appeal the claim. And they can be in a cycle where it takes years to get the benefits that they’ve earned,” Berry said. 

“And usually that’s where we get involved where the veteran gets denied and the veteran doesn’t understand why the evidence that they submitted is not good enough,” he continued. 

The White House on Tuesday boasted that the VA has already granted 25,000 veterans and their survivors benefits for asthma, rhinitis and sinusitis based on presumptive exposure to particulate matter. 

The department has also launched VET-HOME, a network of providers who will conduct patient assessments on military exposures, and expects to have a fully operational call center by January to help veterans concerned about environmental exposures. 

The language of the PACT Act also aims to expand the VA’s capacity to handle the influx of claims.  For instance, it invests in VA claims processing, hiring more personnel to help the agency better handle the load, as well as investing in 31 major clinics and research facilities in 19 states. 

Moving forward, advocates say the most important thing the VA can do to implement the legislation smoothly is to communicate with veterans about the benefits they may qualify for and to set expectations. 

The agency has already established a webpage answering questions about who qualifies for benefits under the legislation.  

“There should be an immediate call to action for veterans to file their claims for the VA to process those claims expeditiously, and for the VA hospitals and benefits system to be ready for an influx of patients,” said Ret. Army Lt. Col. Beth Kubala, who serves as executive Director of the Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic (VLC) at the Syracuse University College of Law 

“The VA is a large federal entity, and it handles medical care, benefits and a whole host of resources for our nation’s veterans. And I think implementation of the PACT is going to have to cause the VA to mobilize all the parts of its agency to support a smooth implementation of this,” she continued.  

Congressional oversight will also be critical to ensuring the bill is implemented as smoothly as possible, advocates say. This could take the form of public hearings and regular reporting. 

But Tom Porter, executive vice president of government affairs for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, says that veterans’ service organizations also play a role in oversight.  

“We don’t just wash our hands of it. We have a role where we have to partner essentially with the VA and with Congress to be advocates for what we just asked for,” Porter said. “When Congress moves too slow, and when the VA moves too slow, then we need to push them.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Death of al-Zawahiri reduces risks of another 9/11 but will not deter lone wolves

Americans who have never heard of Ayman al-Zawahiri or have long forgotten his name may now wonder what his death means for the struggle against terrorism. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) killed the 71-year-old al Qaeda leader last week in a drone strike against his Kabul safe house. Widely seen as a victory for justice, the killing sends a clear message to Afghanistan — but it will have only a minor impact on the struggle against terrorism.

Ayman al-Zawahiri was an Egyptian medical doctor and member of the Muslim Brotherhood, an ideological precursor to al Qaeda, and later Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Although he did not participate in the plot, the security services arrested al-Zawahiri as part of their crackdown following the assassination of President Anwar Sadat in 1981. They tortured him in prison, which left him imbittered and contributed to his radicalization.

After being released from prison in 1984, al-Zawahiri journeyed to Peshawar, Pakistan, where he met Osama bin Laden. The precise nature of their interaction and al-Zawahiri’s activities during the next decade remain unclear. Bin Laden founded al Qaeda in 1988, and by 1991, al-Zawahiri had assumed leadership of Islamic Jihad. In 1998, the two leaders living in Afghanistan under Taliban protection merged their groups.

Although content to let bin Laden be the voice and face of the organization, al-Zawahiri was its brain. According to former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel’s “Search for Al-Qaeda,” al-Zawahiri convinced bin Laden of the need for a global jihad. He may have written the infamous 1998 fatwa to “kill Americans and their allies—civilian and military.” In 2001, he published a brief memoir, “Knights Under the Profits Banner,” which articulates the jihadist ideology. Many analysists considered him to be the real mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He took over leadership of the organization when Seal Team 6 killed bin Laden in 2011.

While the families of the 9/11 victims along with most Americans view the killing of al-Zawahiri as just retribution for that attack and his other crimes, it will not reduce the terrorist threat. Al Qaeda yielded primacy of place in the global jihad to the Islamic State in Syria in Iraq (ISIS) in 2014. The United States and its allies have severely degraded both organizations.

The February 2022 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Communityissued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that al Qaeda has “devolved operational responsibility to regional affiliates as it has shifted away from centrally directed plotting.” That conclusion suggests that al-Zawahiri’s return to Kabul may have been little more than a victorious homecoming. The report concluded that the greatest threat came from its affiliates in Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, which may attack U.S. interests but probably cannot strike the American homeland.

The primary threat today comes not from groups but from lone wolves, individuals motivated by extremist ideology but unaffiliated with any group. Lone wolves acting on behalf of jihadist ideology have conducted attacks in the United States and Europe over the past decade. On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen murdered 49 people at the Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida, swearing allegiance to ISIS during the attack. One month later, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel drove a truck through a crowd of people celebrating Bastille Day in Nice, France, killing 86. Like Mateen, he had no known affiliation with any extremist groups, although ISIS claimed he acted on its call to kill infidels.

These and other incidents suggest that the center of gravity in combating terrorism is not groups and organizations but the ideology that motivates them. As long as the jihadist worldview persists, decapitation strikes like the ones that killed bin Laden and al-Zawahiri will have little effect. Kill one terrorist leader and another will take his place. Such operations, along with disrupting networks and attacking terrorist finances, remain important because they reduce the likelihood of another 9/11. However, drone strikes cannot prevent smaller-scale attacks.

Although the killing of al-Zawahiri will have negligible effect on the global jihad, it has other important results. It reminds our enemies that the United States has a long memory and a long reach. It also lets the Taliban know that it will pay a price for harboring terrorists.

The drone strike demonstrates that an over-the-horizon strategy can produce results. It allows the United States to strike terrorists without putting the lives of American service personnel at risk. President Biden vowed to do just that after withdrawing the last U.S. troops from Afghanistan a year ago.

Use of such precision weapons without collateral damage requires precise intelligence on the target. In the case of al-Zawahiri, the intelligence was so precise that the CIA not only located the safe house in which he was hiding, it determined that he read on its balcony early each morning. That information allowed them to fire two low-yield Hellfire missiles, killing him without harming anyone else. The CIA still has eyes and ears on the ground in Afghanistan.

The Taliban government has denied knowing of al-Zawahiri’s presences in the country. There may be an element of truth in that assertion. The Taliban is a coalition, not a unified movement. The militant Haqqani Network, one of whose members Sirajuddin Haqqani is the interior minister, smuggled al-Zawahiri into the country, possibly without the knowledge of other government officials. The former U.S. representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, has suggested that members of the Taliban may even have provided the United States with the intelligence that allowed them to target al-Zawahiri.

Drones will, however, remain controversial. Critics describe their use as extra-judicial killing, since we are not in a declared war. They point to the deaths of 10 people, including seven children, in a strike last August aimed at a man mistakenly identified as a terrorist. However, the 1998 fatwa issued by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri has been widely interpreted as a declaration of war against the United States. Also, the intelligence, not the weapon, was faulty.

Civilians have always died in conflicts, and conventional aircraft cause more casualties by far than drones. Given the persistence of the Islamist threat, more strikes like the one that killed al-Zawahiri are bound to occur.

Tom Mockaitis is professor of history at DePaul University and author of “Osama Bin Laden: A Biography.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Health officials walk fine line as monkeypox swells within LGBT community

State and city governments are walking a fine line as they move to confront the monkeypox outbreak, trying to spread awareness of the disease — which has thus far predominantly affected men who have sex with men — while avoiding stigmas.  

“The tightrope you’re trying to walk is making sure that people don’t see it as just a gay men’s illness, but not alarming people so that they use up resources that need to go to the people who need the most right now,” Will Goedel, a professor at the Brown University School of Public Health, told The Hill.  

The first American cases of monkeypox were detected in Massachusetts nearly three months ago, and, on Thursday, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra officially declared monkeypox to be a public health emergency in the United States.

The number of total monkeypox cases in the U.S. has reached more than 7,000, with concentrations in the states of New York, California and Illinois. Each of these states has issued their own emergency orders to distribute resources such as vaccines and testing more efficiently amid growing demand. 

But even in tandem with emergency declarations, officials have been cautious in their messaging.

A nuanced approach

“We know that this virus impacts everyone equally — but we also know that those in our LGBTQ community are at greater risk right now. Many people in our LGBTQ community are scared and frustrated,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed (D) said in a statement last week, after declaring a public health emergency for the city.  

San Francisco public health officer Susan Philip told The Hill in an interview that it is crucial to bring awareness and education to vulnerable communities most at risk.  

“… We have not had confirmed cases yet in children under eight or people who are pregnant; the health of men, gay men, and others and LGBTQ communities is extremely important. And that was — that was a key point that we wanted to message alongside the importance of understanding about monkeypox,” Philip said.  

She added that, in San Francisco, the virus is disproportionately impacting Latinos, making it crucial to strengthen relationships between those communities and the Department of Public Health.  

“It’s really important for us not to stigmatize any groups so that they feel comfortable getting information from us or from community partners, that they understand how they can access services, including vaccine and treatment and testing.”  

Massimo Pacilli, deputy commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health, who is leading the city’s monkeypox strategy, said his focus is on awareness, education and intervention. 

Pacilli said his department’s messaging is based around “ensuring that we don’t blame those who are affected by the virus” and instead make it so “the focus is about protecting and intervening, to kind of interrupt transmission.” 

No more abstinence-only

Part of the effort not to perpetuate social stigma has been a messaging strategy that doesn’t ask members of the LGBT community to limit their sexual partners. This strategy was commonly used by government officials during the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s and ’90s, when the virus was referred to as the “gay plague.”  

“It’s very easy for a government to want to want to very quickly police same-sex sexual behavior. It’s very — it’s second nature to them,” Brown University’s Goedel said.  

Monkeypox is spread through prolonged contact with its characteristic lesions. While sexual contact is believed to have preceded many infections, authorities have repeatedly stressed that the virus is not a sexually transmitted disease, and contact with sexual fluids is not necessary for it to spread.

Philip noted that adopting abstinence as a public health strategy doesn’t work, and can often be counterproductive because community members will stop listening to other guidance from officials.  

Philip said the Department of Public Health’s outreach includes information how the disease is transmitted, what the virus is and what the symptoms are, how to best protect against transmission, and “the importance of a vaccine.”  

CEO of the San Francisco AIDS Foundation Tyler TerMeer said that his organization has been working with the city’s Department of Public Health closely on messaging that encourages sex positivity.  

“We have a perspective that [it] isn’t our role to tell people what they should or shouldn’t be doing or to tell them to stop having sex with the threat of monkeypox,” TerMeer said, adding his organization is working on messaging that “gives people some concrete tips” on how to stay safe. 

By contrast, the head of the World Health Organization last week recommended that men who have sex with men reduce the number of sexual partners they have “for the moment,” and reconsider having sex with new partners. 

A community primed for viral preparedness 

The LGBT community’s history with the HIV/AIDS epidemic was ugly. As TerMeer puts it, a generation was wiped out because of a lack of response by the federal government.  

“The initial response to HIV in our country is a very complicated and tragic story, one that deserves its own memoir and is truly a stain on American history,” he said. 

The legacy of HIV has led to generations of LGBT community members who are actively engaged in health interventions and preventative care, though experts acknowledge that the community is not “monolithic,” and there are members who may still be apprehensive about vaccines and treatments. 

Public health departments across the country have partnered with organizations such as TerMeer’s to reach members of the community.

Pacilli says these STI and HIV partners are in turn “naturally connected to many community-based organizations and venues that have reached this community as well.” 

“The experiences and learnings from the HIV/AIDS epidemic are many and deep, and they have fundamentally shaped public health, the careers of people who serve in the field, including my own, and the entire approach to how we engage with communities and provide affirming, dignified care,” Ashwin Vasan, commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, said in a statement to The Hill. 

“A human rights-based approach that honors people’s dignity is essential and these lessons are hardwired into our planning and execution of the monkeypox response, whatever the operational or logistical challenges,” Vasan said. 

Where the U.S. stands on the monkeypox response now 

The federal government’s response to monkeypox has been fraught as local health departments wait for more vaccines and treatments to become available through the federal government.  

The Biden administration has been hit with criticism from advocates and lawmakers who say that the federal response to the outbreak has been inadequate as the number of cases increase and demand for vaccines and testing soared.  

Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) are among those who’ve voiced concerns. Padilla encouraged top officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health and Human Services to increase the flow of monkeypox vaccines to his state.  

Thus far, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the use of an additional 800,000 Jynneos vaccines, a smallpox shot made in Denmark by company Bavarian Nordic that is also used to prevent monkeypox. The FDA has also proposed a way of splitting the Jynneos vaccine into fifths to increase supply of the shot.  

But TerMeer said the damage that has resulted from a slow federal response has already been done.  

“What can’t be overstated in this moment is that monkeypox is causing extreme distress and fear, anxiety and real pain to our community, and that there will be unfortunate lasting consequences to the communities that it’s impacting the most right now because of the federal government’s slow response to the outbreak,” he said. 

Becerra said Thursday as he declared a public health emergency that the White House is prepared to take the U.S. response “to the next level.” With the declaration officially made, resources to combat the spread of monkeypox are expected to become more easily accessible.

The difference that this makes will have to be seen.

Source: TEST FEED1

House GOP immigration framework would be a promising start

The Biden administration has created an unprecedented border crisis affecting our entire nation. This has galvanized public opposition, creating a united front of state and local governments, former immigration officials, and public interest groups demanding that the administration stop its sabotage of border and interior immigration enforcement.

Thankfully, Republican leadership has answered this growing chorus, releasing a border security framework for day one of the Republican-led House, assuming the GOP wins control in the November elections. The framework represents a comprehensive plan to bring our borders under control, end abuse of the asylum system, curb abuse of executive authority, and address the growing threats of fentanyl, crime and terrorism crossing our borders. The framework also categorically rejects the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens.

Barring an epic rebound from the Biden administration on numerous fronts over the next three months, it appears almost certain that voters will place the GOP in a position to make good on these promises. Republicans are likely to regain control of not only the House but possibly the Senate as well. For decades, Republican lawmakers talked a good game but legislated timidly when it came to border and interior enforcement. However, the recent GOP framework constitutes a written promissory note to the American public that will come due on Jan. 3, 2023.

House Republican leadership promises the legislation will be ready to go on the first day of the 118^th Congress. It would include many obvious fixes to the border crisis. It would mandate completion of the border wall, which the Biden administration now concedes is both effective at controlling illegal immigration and essential to the Democratic Party’s efforts to save Sen. Mark Kelly’s Arizona seat.

The promised legislation would include measures that have proven to be effective at deterring illegal migration — deterrence being the most humane way of regaining control of lawlessness at the southern border. Reinstatement of Migrant Protection Protocols, an expansion of Title 42, reform of our asylum system, and imposition of mandatory E-Verify make it clear that crossing our borders illegally no longer will be rewarded with a bus or plane ticket to your preferred destination within the United States, as the Biden administration has been doing.

Equally as important, the framework pledges to rein in the Biden administration’s exercise of what amounts to retroactive veto power over immigration laws. Through President Biden’s executive orders and policy memoranda issued by Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, the administration essentially has nullified nearly every immigration statute signed into law by previous administrations, including many for which Biden voted during his decades in the Senate.

A Republican-controlled Congress — or House, at least — can’t force Biden to sign a border security bill he doesn’t like. But they would have the power to hold him and his political appointees accountable for their refusal to carry out immigration laws on the books, including impeachment of officials who do not uphold their sworn oaths of office.

No longer would Mayorkas be able to come before a Congressional committee and assert, under oath, that our borders are secure while a quarter-million people are breaching them every month. And, with the power of the purse, the 118^th Congress could prevent funds designated for immigration enforcement from being co-opted for schemes such as handing illegal aliens newly-minted ID cards in lieu of statutorily mandated detention.

Until recently, both parties routinely promised to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws, only to forget those promises as soon as Election Day was in the rearview mirror. That is why our coalition and American voters will be there, come January, to make sure that the new congressional leadership makes good on its commitments.

Perhaps, ironically, the utter disaster wrought by the Biden administration’s handling of the border, and our immigration system overall, will finally give Republicans the political fortitude to act decisively. The American public has gotten a taste of what it’s like to live in a nation without borders and they don’t like it. It’s time to deliver for them.

Dan Stein is the president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Biden’s hot streak fails to quell Democratic doubts

President Biden has been on a much-needed hot streak of late. 

But it hasn’t stopped members of his own party from signaling their doubts about whether he should seek a second term.

It’s a galling situation for Biden, who is sensitive about his age and, long before that was an issue, has felt at times during his half-century in politics that he has not been accorded due respect.

Now he is moving to the midpoint of his first term with a growing list of accomplishments — and Democratic officeholders are becoming increasingly bold in their view that he should stand aside.

The past few weeks have seen new propulsion behind a presidency that only a short time ago seemed directionless. 

A gun reform bill — modest yet also the most significant step on the issue since the 1990s — passed. So did legislation supporting the American semiconductor industry.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the longtime al Qaeda leader who had been Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man before taking control of the terror network, was killed by a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan on July 31. 

Perhaps most significantly of all, Democrats are on the cusp of passing a bill that will curb prescription drug prices, begin to address climate change, raise some taxes on the very wealthy and, perhaps, tame inflation.

Biden can also point to the $1 trillion infrastructure bill he signed into law late last year and an economy that, for all its other problems, has seen robust job growth throughout his presidency.

On Friday, the latest employment figures showed the nation adding more than half a million jobs in July — a figure that surpassed even the most optimistic estimates. The unemployment rate fell to 3.5 percent, matching the 50-year low hit in early 2020, immediately before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold.

“Today, there are more people working in America than before the pandemic began,” Biden said in Friday remarks at the White House. “In fact, there are more people working in America than any point in American history.”

Yet for all of that, Biden continues to battle miserable job approval numbers and a tangible lack of enthusiasm among many of his fellow Democrats. 

As of Friday evening, the RealClearPolitics polling average showed almost 57 percent of Americans disapproving of his job performance and just under 40 percent approving. The biggest single culprit is inflation, which is at its highest point since the early 1980s.

The question marks around whether Biden should seek a second term, according to Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh, “have to do with his age and his performance to date. People are just looking at that and going, ‘Is he really the strongest Democrat to try to hold the White House in 2024?’”

Longabaugh, who was a senior adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign, made clear that he shared those doubts. He also noted that the public chorus of discontent is “an extraordinary situation” without any obvious parallel in recent decades.

Biden’s defenders note that some of the criticism, explicit and implicit, is coming from the left — a strand of the party that has long distrusted the president.

When progressive Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) was asked late last month whether she wanted Biden to run for a second term, she replied, “I don’t want to answer that question.” 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), asked by CNN’s Dana Bash in June whether she would commit to supporting Biden for a second term, said, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.”

But not all the dissent is coming from predictable quarters.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), a moderate, replied, “No, I don’t” when asked in a recent radio interview if he wanted the president to seek a second term. “I think the country would be well served by a new generation of compelling, well-prepared, dynamic Democrats,” he added.

In the past few days, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) ruffled more feathers by first saying during a televised debate that she did not “believe” Biden would seek a second term. Maloney then went on CNN to offer an apology to the president but repeated, “I happen to think you won’t be running.”

On top of all that, there are some Democrats who are positioning themselves for a presidential run in the event that Biden decides against seeking a second term. The most blatant example is California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), though Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) is another name drawing some attention.

Some Democrats who are more supportive of Biden roll their eyes at the shenanigans.

“I think it’s the typical Democratic hand-wringing that we’ve seen prior to the midterms for every Democratic president since I became an adult,” said strategist Julie Roginsky, citing the big losses suffered by the party in the 1994 and 2010 congressional elections during the first terms of former President Clinton and former President Obama, respectively.

But those presidents did not really face any credible suggestion that they should surrender the White House after only one term.

Roginsky placed some of the blame for Biden’s plight on what she characterized as “the White House’s massive communications problem.”

She contended that the president and his aides are spending too much time on defense rather than assailing the GOP for its “extremist” positions on key issues such as abortion and election denialism.

Still, Biden faces a big conundrum. 

If he responds to suggestions that he should relinquish office at the end of his term, he fuels the story. If he stays quiet, he does nothing to tamp down the dissenters.

It’s a problem from which there is no obvious escape — despite the recent spate of good news.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Vulnerable Democrats seek cover on Title 42

Vulnerable Democrats in the early hours of Sunday sought cover on preserving Title 42, the Trump-era health order that prevents migrants from entering the country on asylum claims.  

Six Democrats voted for the amendment put forward by Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), who said it would have ensured that a comprehensive plan is in place before Title 42 is lifted. 

Five vulnerable Democratic incumbents voted for the amendment, along with Tester, the sponsor, but it failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to overcome a procedural objection.  It fell short by a vote of 56 to 44. 

Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Raphael Warnock (Ga.) vote for the amendment.

Minutes before that, however, all Democrats voted against an amendment proposed by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) that was nearly identical to the Tester revision. That proposal called for pulling $1 million in funding from the Affordable Care Act to maintain Title 42.

But because the Lankford amendment was in line with budget rules, it only required 51 votes for passage. If Democrats had supported the measure it could have been added to the bill, putting final passage of the package in jeopardy.

Vulnerable Democrats felt safe voting for the Tester alternative because they knew it wouldn’t collect 60 votes to waive a procedural objection to it. 

Lankford said the procedural sleight of hand allowed vulnerable Democratic colleagues to vote for Title 42 without any chance that their vote would tie the Biden administration’s hands. 

“This allows any individual to be able to vote for [Title 42] but actually oppose the one that would have actually implemented the policy,” he said on the Senate floor. “This is the reason people get so angry at Washington, D.C.”

The side-by-side amendments were proposed during the weekend’s marathon vote-a-rama, when senators voted on a number of potential revisions for the Democrats’ sweeping package, titled the Inflation Reduction Act.

The vote-a-rama is part of the budget reconciliation process, which Democrats are using to buck a GOP filibuster and pass their bill with a simple majority vote.

Republicans have vowed to bring a number of amendments to the floor to force Democrats into difficult votes, and as an attempt to change the bill before it is brought up for a final vote.

Lankford and Tester proposed the pair of Title 42-related amendments more than four months after the Biden administration rescinded Title 42, controversial pandemic-era immigration policy introduced under former President Trump that allows migrants to be expelled at the border and blocks them from seeking asylum.

In May, however, a federal judge issued a ruling that temporarily blocked the Biden administration from repealing the policy.

Moderate Democrats undercut Biden’s decision in the days after the move, labeling the decision as frightening and wrong. The action also put vulnerable Democrats facing reelection in a tough spot, forcing them to take a stance against Biden and in favor of preserving the measure.

Cortez Masto, Hassan, Kelly and Warnock are all up for reelection in November.

Source: TEST FEED1

Senate begins vote-a-rama, expected to last all night

The Senate shortly before midnight Saturday started an around-the-clock series of votes known as a vote-a-rama to wrap up work on the Inflation Reduction Act.  

The vote-a-rama is a feature of the Senate budget process, which Democrats are using to pass a major climate, tax and health bill with 51 votes, bypassing a Republican filibuster. 

The budget reconciliation process allows the party in control of the Senate to pass major legislation with a simple-majority vote but the trade-off is Democrats must allow Republicans vote on an unlimited number of back-to-back amendments.  

Each side has only one minute to make an argument for or against an amendment before a vote is called.  

Votes on amendments that violate the Byrd Rule, which requires that legislation passed through the budget reconciliation process have a non-tangential impact on spending, revenues or the debt limit, are subject to procedural objections, which require 60 votes to be waived.  

The first amendment of the vote-a-rama is one sponsored by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would require Medicare not to pay more than what the Department of Veterans Affairs does for prescription drugs.  

The last vote-a-rama the Senate held in August of 2021 to pass the budget resolution lasted 14 hours and included consideration of more than 40 amendments.  

Democratic senators say they expect this weekend’s vote-a-rama to last until 11 am or noon Sunday, judging by past experiences.  

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP targets vulnerable Democrats with tough votes in vote-a-rama

Senate Republicans are targeting vulnerable Democrats on hot-button campaign issues like taxes, gas prices and the border, as their colleagues plow forward with a sprawling economic bill key to President Biden’s legislative agenda.

Republicans are hoping to make Democrats feel pain with a series of tough votes on proposed amendments to the party’s mammoth bill, dubbed the Inflation Reduction Act, as the Senate buckles up for a long night of round the clock votes in what’s known as a vote-a-rama.

Among the amendments Republicans will bring up during the vote-a-rama include measures they say are aimed at gas prices by striking imported and domestic oil tax proposals, reducing gas prices with onshore domestic energy production, and preventing IRS audits from targeting small business owners.

GOP leaders have been hopeful about the chances of securing last-minute changes to the plan, despite their overwhelming opposition to the package, in the event it could make the legislation tougher to pass in the House. However, there is doubt among Republicans over whether any will be able to stick to the bill.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) told The Hill that when a party is using the special budget rules the Democrats are employing to avoid a filibuster, “the other side’s going to, you know, end up doing amendments that generally get wiped clean anyway.” He said amendments usually wind up getting used “for political purposes.”

Other amendments Republicans are expected to bring up during the marathon voting session includes one being offered by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) dealing with Title 42, a Trump-era policy that allows for migrants to be quickly expelled at the border.

The vote could be a tough one for some vulnerable Democrats ahead of the coming midterm races in November.

Earlier this year, the Biden administration drew pushback from Republicans, as well as resistance from some Democrats, over plans to rescind the policy. The effort hit a roadblock in May after a federal judge temporarily stopped the administration from ending the policy, but Lankford has also helped lead a bipartisan push that would limit the White House’s authority on the matter. 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) called the voting session, which can run through the night and well into the morning, a “rare” chance for voters to see where members stand on critical issues.

“Sometimes you don’t get a vote on some of these things, so it’s good to bring them out,” Tuberville told The Hill, while adding he also has several proposals queued up for consideration.

“I got a couple on taxes, couple on border, if we get to them,” Tuberville said. “We got a lot of them. So, we’ll see. We might be there this time tomorrow night.”

Alex Bolton contributed.

Source: TEST FEED1

Senators fuel up on junk food for marathon debate

Senators are noshing on chocolate, nuts and beef jerky ahead of Saturday night’s marathon debate, stocking up on their favorite snacks to keep them awake and energized throughout the overnight session.

The chamber is scheduled to start a vote-a-rama sometime around midnight, and it’s expected to run through Sunday morning. The hours-long process is part of the budget reconciliation procedure, which Democrats are using to pass their sweeping climate, tax reform and health care bill.

The last around-the-clock vote-a-rama the Senate held in August of 2021 lasted more than 14 hours, forcing senators to remain in the Capitol and vote on more than 40 amendments.

Senators are stockpiling tasty, high-calorie snacks and drinks to power them through the late-night into the early-morning hours.

“I went to Trader Joes and bought a few hundred dollars worth of snacks for all the floor staff, for fellow senators and other people working late tonight,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) told The Hill on Saturday.

The New Jersey Democrat said he secured “lots of things with chocolate” —  dark chocolate peanut butter cups and chocolate-covered espresso beans. 

He also picked up nuts and vegetables, he admitted, “just make people happy and healthy.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is also riding the chocolate and nuts train Saturday night.

 
He has chocolate-covered macadamia nuts, a Hawaiian specialty. 

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) is chowing down on mixed nuts and peanut butter crackers, washing it down with “lots of water.”

Pretzels were a popular choice for Saturday night’s session. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) brought the salty, crunchy snack along with flavored seltzer. His favorite flavor is cranberry lime but he lamented “it’s not as easy to find.”

Some senators are sticking with fruit to get them through the long night.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) told The Hill he brought two dozen bananas and chocolate milk.

“I like bananas,” the Democrat from Delaware said, laughing after his admission.

Others senators are focusing on protein instead of candy to get them through the grueling session.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pulled a mini Slim Jim out of his pocket on his way to the Senate floor.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) says he’ll get by on beef jerky paired with “lots of Red Bull.”

Walking to the Senate in gym clothes Saturday afternoon, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said he didn’t bring any snacks in advance but added he is “confident” that “pizza and beer will magically appear.”

Source: TEST FEED1