radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 
radiofree.asia 

Category: Pramila Jayapal

  • Stock Ban May Not Come to Vote This Month as Pelosi Claimed, Lawmakers Say

    Proponents of legislation that would ban members of Congress from trading stocks are say that Democratic party leaders are stalling on the bill.

    Though House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) claimed last week that lawmakers are finally ready to bring a bill to ban Congress from trading stocks to a vote by the end of this month, proponents of the ban are skeptical that that is the case, according to interviews with the lawmakers.

    As Insider reports, key advocates of the proposal in the House like Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-Virginia), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) say that, even though lawmakers have been negotiating the bill for months, the details of a potential ban are still not being discussed.

    Democratic leadership, meanwhile, has not been clueing lead advocates in on their plans for the legislation — and some lawmakers think that Democratic leaders could be delaying because they’re personally against the plan, with people like Pelosi and her husband personally profiting greatly from stock trading.

    As a New York Times report revealed last week, members of Congress regularly make stock trades in companies that their committees oversee, potentially representing conflicts of interest. According to the report, nearly a fifth of Congress has reported making such a trade between 2019 and 2021.

    Last Wednesday, Pelosi said that lawmakers “believe we have a product that we can bring to the floor this month. But in a briefing with the Committee on House Administration on Thursday on the bill, advocates were presented with no legislative text, according to two Democratic sources, but just a framework on the bill. Lawmakers on the committee have been claiming that bill text is ready for months, but no such thing has emerged.

    “We have not heard exactly what’s happening,” Jayapal told Insider. “I can’t say I’m confident.”

    Spanberger has speculated that Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) are simply trying to put the bill off long enough until efforts to pass it fizzle out. “I think that they’re trying to run out the clock,” she said in May.

    The delay isn’t due to a lack of energy or ideas for the proposal; there have been multiple stock ban bills introduced by members from both sides of the aisle over the past year, with rare bipartisan support for the ban. Those bills all have some form of ban on members’ ability to trade individual stocks. Some include variations on whether their families should also be banned, while others allow lawmakers to keep the stocks in a blind trust or require officials to divest from them entirely.

    One roadblock to progress on the proposal in the House may be the House Administration Committee, which is drafting the bill. After the committee held a hearing on the idea earlier this year, committee chair Zoe Lofgren (D-California) was cool to the proposal. Republicans on the committee also said that they are opposed to the idea.

    According to Insider, Spanberger sought a meeting with Lofgren after the April hearing, and found a wide disconnect between lawmakers in terms of their understanding of the bill. “It was very clear that some of the members just were on different planets talking about this issue,” said Spanberger. “Like, ‘Oh, am I going to have to sell my house?’”

    Even if lawmakers are successful in urging Pelosi and Democratic leaders to make progress on the proposal, Senate Democrats are saying that they won’t propose a stock ban until after the midterm election, according to Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), frustrating Senate advocates.

    “There is no reason that we should not have a stock trading bill on the floor and vote on it,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) told Insider last week. “Every day that we delay on passing meaningful restrictions on stock trading among members of Congress is a day that further erodes the credibility of this body.”

    Indeed, as the proposal has been delayed, advocates and watchdog groups have grown increasingly frustrated, saying that a stock ban is crucial to restoring public confidence in lawmakers. As long as lawmakers are allowed to trade stocks, they say, the public will question whether or not they’re using insider information to get out ahead; after all, Congress beat the market last year.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Lawmakers Are Facing More Violent Threats Due to Trumpian Rhetoric, Jayapal Says

    “We are at a precipice and we’re counting on the American people to come through — and I have hope that people will realize that we have to turn this clock back.”

    That’s what U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told MSNBC’s Ali Velshi Saturday in an interview about how rhetoric from former President Donald Trump and his political allies — including their “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by Democrats — connects to threats against both American democracy and individual lawmakers, including her.

    The interview came just two days after Jayapal released audio of some threatening voicemails she has received and The Washington Post published a detailed account of her experience on July 9, when an armed man who lives just seven blocks away yelled obscenities outside her Seattle home. According to the newspaper, Brett Forsell’s pistol was seized by police and he is now out on bail.

    “This is not normal. We should not accept it as normal,” Jayapal said after Velshi aired some of the messages. “Where the hell are we as a country when this is becoming normalized? And so that’s part of the reason I did the story and that I released some of the voicemails — those are just a fraction of what we’ve received, along with death threats and many other things.”

    “I think it’s important that people understand the connections between the Big Lie, January 6th, and what happened at my house, and see how these things are affecting each of us individually and then all of us as a society,” she continued, referencing when a pro-Trump mob stormed the U.S. Capitol last year. “I wanted people to be aware of what we’re dealing with so that we can reject it and say we gotta put whatever has been unleashed back away and not allow this to be normal.”

    Asked by Velshi how her experience with threats of violence has changed over the years, Jayapal responded that “it’s completely different over the last… four to five years — really since Donald Trump was in the White House and actually allowing and promoting this kind of violence and political rhetoric, racism, and sexism.”

    Citing her own experiences at protests, she stressed that “there’s a big difference between protesting peacefully — free speech peacefully — and showing up for harassment with a gun at somebody’s house in the middle of the night, constantly coming by and yelling racist, sexist, xenophobic things.”

    “I think that what has changed is there’s a sense that everything is so unfair and it’s been propelled by Donald Trump — the institutions are unfair — that the only recourse is to violence, and that is an extremely dangerous thing and we saw it come to fruition on January 6th, and now in ways that… I’ve seen outside my door, ” she added. “It is particularly bad if you’re a woman of color.”

    The pair discussed some recent actions by Trump-friendly politicians — including a June advertisement by Eric Greitens, who lost the Republican primary race for a U.S. Senate seat in Missouri, about hunting “RINOs,” or “Republicans in name only.”

    Jayapal called it “absolutely terrifying” and acknowledged some of what’s faced by Republicans like Reps. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) and Liz Cheney (Wyo.), the only two members of the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack. Kinzinger is not running for reelection in November and Cheney lost her primary contest against a Trump-backed candidate.

    Velshi and Jayapal also noted U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) repeatedly saying that “there’ll be riots in the streets” if Trump — whose Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago, was raided last month by federal agents executing a search warrant — is prosecuted for mishandling classified documents.

    “I find Sen. Graham’s comments stunning — a sitting U.S. senator essentially calling for riots in the street,” said Jayapal. “This is a very Trumpian, MAGA tactic: When you are being threatened with justice, that you call for riots or violence. That is what led to January 6th.”

    “MAGA,” or “Make America Great Again,” was a Trump slogan for the 2016 presidential race.

    “We’re in a very dangerous place… and I think it is important that we understand what’s at stake,” Jayapal said about two months out from the midterm elections. “It’s important that we vote for people who do not subscribe to the Big Lie, whether Republican or Democrat — that we vote for people who are going to protect our institutions of democracy.”

    FiveThirtyEight on Tuesday published an analysis revealing that among the Republican nominees for the U.S. House and Senate as well as governor, secretary of state, and attorney general on the ballot in November, 195 are 2020 election deniers, 61 are “doubters,” and 115 did not have a discernible position and declined to clarify.

    Jayapal expressed hope for the future, highlighting that some Trump-endorsed candidates — such as Sarah Palin, who just lost a special election in Alaska for an open U.S. House seat — are being rejected by voters.

    Pointing out that Kansas voters last month opposed a measure that would have paved the way for an abortion ban in the state in the wake of the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court reversing Roe v. Wade, Jayapal argued that “we are seeing a rejection of the extreme MAGA positions across the country.”

    “I think Americans will reject this,” she said. “We have to make it clear what the stakes are and we have to talk about what Democrats have done — the remarkable things that we have been able to accomplish with very small majorities.”

    “All of that is important, but we do need to lay out what is at stake for our democracy and I think the January 6th committee is also doing that and the Justice Department with the raid at Mar-a-Lago and all of the things that we are finding out about nuclear secrets, other things that would’ve been unimaginable even five years ago,” the congresswoman continued.

    “We’ve got to get people in government who actually believe in government,” she added, “and who believe in democracy, believe in voting, believe in our Constitution.”

    Jayapal’s comments came after President Joe Biden, in a prime-time speech earlier this month, warned Americans about how MAGA Republicans and Trump — who’s expected to run for president in 2024, despite being the target of multiple legal probes — threaten U.S. democracy.

  • Progressives Demand Biden Immediately Ban New Fossil Fuel Leases on Public Lands

    As climate action stalls indefinitely in Congress, Democrats in the House are demanding that President Joe Biden use his executive power to ban all new fossil fuel leases on public lands and waters, and to start phasing out fossil fuel development on public land altogether.

    In a letter effort led by Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), the lawmakers said that it’s vital for Biden to take action so that the country has a chance of meeting its Paris Agreement pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent of 2005 levels by the end of the decade. Action is also critical to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, they said.

    The Biden administration recently took steps to allow oil and gas drilling in parts of the Gulf of Mexico while resuming leasing on public lands across eight states. In their letter, lawmakers expressed “grave concern” over this action, saying that it runs counter not only to what climate experts have been recommending to limit the worst impacts of the climate crisis, but also to Biden’s own campaign pledges to stop new fossil fuel leasing.

    Fossil fuel extraction on U.S. public lands is a major contributor to the climate crisis. A 2018 report by the U.S. Geological Survey found that a quarter of all U.S. carbon emissions come from public land oil and gas extraction.

    “While the oil and gas industry is cynically exploiting the crisis in Ukraine to demand even more access to our public lands, turning even more lands over for drilling will not offer relief at the pump or aid to the people of Ukraine,” the letter reads. “We need real climate leadership today, and that starts with canceling the leases offered and/or sold in June and issuing a final five-year offshore leasing plan with no new leases.”

    Center for Biological Diversity Senior Public Lands Campaigner Taylor McKinnon echoed the Democrats. “Big Oil is price-gouging the public and then using its profiteering as an excuse to worsen the climate emergency with new federal fossil fuel leasing,” McKinnon said in a statement.

    The letter was signed by 27 Democrats, including Representatives Jamaal Bowman (New York), Cori Bush (Missouri), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York), Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) and Ayanna Pressley (Massachusetts). It comes after conservative coal baron Sen. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia) killed Democrats’ climate plans last week, which will likely doom the planet to experience worse climate catastrophes for decades to come.

    The lawmakers asked Biden to start the process of phasing out oil and gas production on federal lands, and to cancel the offshore leases that the administration opened up last month. “The climate science is clear and uncompromising,” they wrote. “You and your administration have the authority and a clear pathway to address the quarter of U.S. climate emissions that come from fossil fuel extraction on public lands.”

    Climate advocates have been frustrated by Biden’s moves to exacerbate the climate crisis over his first year in office. Last year, while world leaders gathered for COP26, his administration held the largest oil and gas lease sale in history. When he was first inaugurated, Biden put a pause on new fossil leases but, in the months following, his administration maintained a friendly relationship with the fossil fuel industry.

    Climate advocates were similarly frustrated this week when the White House teased that Biden may be considering declaring an emergency over the climate crisis, but is holding off on the declaration until at least the end of the week, if ever. Climate advocates say declaring a climate emergency is one of the bare minimum actions that Biden can take to combat the climate crisis, along with ending new fossil fuel leases or permits for fossil fuel infrastructure.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jayapal Shares Her Own Abortion Story — and Why Abortion Rights Are Vital

    On Tuesday, 17 Democratic lawmakers, almost all women, were arrested outside the Supreme Court while protesting the court’s recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade. We speak with Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who was one of several Democratic House members who has shared her personal experience of getting an abortion, about what a post-Roe America looks like. “Abortion and the right to make decisions about our own bodies is so innately tied to our ability to control everything in our lives,” says Jayapal. She argues Congress should be prepared to pass national legislation protecting other critical precedents that are now vulnerable to the ultra-conservative Supreme Court, like the right to contraception and marriage equality.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

    On Tuesday, 17 Democratic lawmakers, almost all women, including Congressmembers Cori Bush, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Assistant House Speaker Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, were arrested outside the Supreme Court while protesting the court’s recent decision overturning Roe.

    We’re speaking with Congressmember Pramila Jayapal. Last year, as chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, she testified about having her own abortion. We want to play a clip of that right now.

    REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: I speak to you as one of the one in four women in America who have had an abortion. And for you to understand how I ultimately decided to have an abortion, I have to start earlier, with the birth of my first child, Janak.

    Janak was born at 26-and-a-half weeks while I was on a two-year fellowship, living in India. They weighed only one pound 14 ounces and, upon birth, went down to a weight of just 21 ounces. Janak was so small, they fit in the palm of my hand — the size of a medium-sized squash. For three months, we did not know if Janak would live or die. They needed multiple blood transfusions, had to be fed drop by drop, and constantly had their heart stop and start.

    We returned to the United States after three months. In those early, intensely difficult years, Janak had hydrocephalus — water on the brain — seizures and repeatedly returned to the emergency room because of life-threatening pneumonia. The fact that Janak is a 25-year-old beautiful human being is a true miracle and the greatest gift in my life.

    At the same time that Janak was born, I was also fighting to keep my legal permanent resident status, married to a U.S. citizen with a U.S. citizen child now. In the end, I was able to return to the United States with Janak, provided that I started from scratch to qualify for citizenship.

    As a new mom taking care of a very sick baby and recovering from major surgery myself, I was struggling. I experienced severe postpartum depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, that was only diagnosed after I contemplated suicide and realized I needed to seek help. My marriage did not survive. We split custody of Janak, and I was a part-time single parent.

    Shortly after, I met a wonderful man, who is my husband today. I knew I was not ready to have another child, so I religiously took my daily contraceptive pill. Despite that, I became pregnant. I consulted with my doctors, who told me that any future pregnancy would likely also be high risk to me and the child, similar to what I had gone through with Janak. I very much wanted to have more children, but I simply could not imagine going through that again. After discussions with my partner, who was completely supportive of whatever choice I made, I decided to have an abortion.

    AMY GOODMAN: That is Congressmember Pramila Jayapal testifying, bravely, in Congress last year. Congressmember Jayapal, since then, Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Your comments?

    REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: Amy, it’s a catastrophic decision. And it is very clear to me that this decision, made by five Supreme Court justices who were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote — have literally taken it upon themselves to overturn not just this precedent, but to prepare for overturning other precedent.

    And we have to be clear that abortion and the right to make decisions about our own bodies is so innate and innately tied to our ability to control everything in our lives. These decisions are so nuanced. They require a knowledge of situations that nobody else has, except the pregnant person and the people that we choose to bring in as loved ones.

    And so, I think we have to be clear that this decision is not going to make abortion go away. Abortion is going to continue to happen. And it is going to be illegal, criminalized. People are going to die. And so, we cannot let it stand. It’s why we have to codify Roe v. Wade. And we have to push back on this radical Supreme Court.

    JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Congresswoman, I’d like to ask about another burning [inaudible] climate crisis. More than 1,100 people have died in heat waves in parts of Europe; and huge wildfires in Portugal, France and Spain; Britain under a national emergency. You tweeted on Tuesday, quote, “Brutal heatwaves across the country and the globe are shattering records. The climate crisis is here and now. Action cannot wait any longer.” Yet we’re seeing so many countries, as a result of the war in Ukraine, going back on their proposals, on their moves, in terms of addressing the climate crisis. Your take on the issue?

    REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: Climate change has been one of my personal top priorities, but also a top priority for the Progressive Caucus. It’s why we fought so hard for that half a trillion-dollar investment in Build Back Better. It’s why we held up the infrastructure bill multiple times, even after every Democratic senator had voted for it and sent it over to us. But we wanted to see Build Back Better pass, which we did pass. But we also, since that has died, thanks to one senator, a Democratic senator in the Senate, refusing —

    AMY GOODMAN: We have 10 seconds.

    REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: — to give his support — we have also called for a climate emergency and a whole slate of executive actions. And that is what we think the president must do now, with his executive authority.

    AMY GOODMAN: Are you sorry he’s not doing it today?

    REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL: He’s got to do it quickly. I mean, it’s OK if it’s not today, but it should be today, tomorrow or in the immediate days, because that’s how urgent it is. And we need him to use every power that he has [inaudible] —

    AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Pramila Jayapal, we thank you so much.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Democrats Introduce Bills to Protect Abortion Travelers, Contraception Access

    House Democrats have introduced two bills that would take action to protect access to reproductive health care as the far right assaults abortion rights and, potentially, contraception access for millions of people across the U.S.

    Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Marilyn Strickland (D-Washington) introduced a bill on Thursday safeguarding people’s right to travel across state lines in order to obtain an abortion. The bill would prohibit people from attempting to use state law to restrict or impede an abortion seeker traveling across state lines, a person aiding them in their travel, or a health care provider performing the medical procedure.

    Far right politicians in states like Texas are in the process of drafting legislation to ban people from traveling for abortion care. The Biden administration has vowed to fight such laws, saying that they impede upon people’s right to freely travel across the U.S., but the Democrats’ bill would give the federal government an explicit directive to bring civil action against people found in violation of the law. It would also give people who were harmed in the violation of the law the ability to obtain relief through legal actions.

    “Lawmakers in several states, including my home state of Texas, are now threatening to interfere with the constitutional right of Americans to travel freely and voluntarily within the United States for the purpose of obtaining abortion care. These efforts violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to all citizens,” Fletcher said in a statement. “These efforts to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights must be stopped, and Congress has the power and the responsibility to do so.”

    Also on Thursday, Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Mike Thompson (D-California) introduced a bill that would codify the right to contraception into law. The bill would ban states from restricting access to contraceptives in any way, and would allow the Department of Justice to bring civil action against those found in violation of the law. It would protect access to a wide range of contraceptives, including IUDs, condoms and emergency medication like Plan B.

    “When it comes to our reproductive freedom, it is clear that this right-wing, extremist Supreme Court will not stop at stripping us of our right to safe and legal abortion,” Jayapal said in a statement. “It is incumbent on us to ensure that our right to reproductive health care remains protected.”

    When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson, overturning the federal right to abortion access, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Court should also soon examine the right to gay marriage and access to contraception, as protected under Obergefell v. Hodges and Griswold v. Connecticut, respectively.

    In an explicitly Christofascist move, Republicans are already looking to ban contraception, falsely and cruelly claiming that methods of contraception are equivalent to abortifacients. While access to both contraception and abortifacients is crucial to a safe and just health care system, contraceptives are very much not abortifacients, as they all work to preempt conception in some way.

    A new executive order by President Joe Biden will help protect birth control access and the right to seek an out-of-state abortion, and convene pro bono legal resources to defend abortion seekers and providers. While this executive order may provide legal cover for people while Biden is president, codifying congressional Democrats’ bills into law would provide a more permanent solution that would be harder to overturn if a Republican were to win the presidency in 2024.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressives Call for Reform, Say Supreme Court Has “Destroyed Its Legitimacy”

    Progressives in the House are calling for Congress to pass significant reforms to the Supreme Court after far right justices handed down a deluge of extremist decisions that threaten a wide range of rights and could jeopardize American democracy itself.

    In a statement on Tuesday, Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) said that lawmakers have an “obligation to respond” to right-wing Supreme Court justices in the wake of decisions in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson, which overhauled abortion rights in the country.

    The statement raises alarm over a number of decisions that the Supreme Court has made in just the past few months, some of which overturned centuries-old precedents. The Supreme Court ruled last month in Egbert v. Boule, for instance, that federal law enforcement officers essentially have immunity in cases in which they violate constitutional amendments in the 100-mile border zone. In April, the Supreme Court decided in an eight to one decision that Puerto Ricans do not have the right to the same disability benefits that mainland U.S. residents do.

    Jayapal criticized the Court over its decisions to protect public school employees’ ability to compel students to join them in prayer on school property and bar people on death row who received ineffectual legal defense from presenting new evidence to show their innocence.

    She also listed recent rulings to protect police from being sued if they don’t read a person their Miranda rights, threaten tribal sovereignty by allowing states to prosecute crimes on Native American land, allow the CIA to block information about their torture methods from being released, and much more.

    “The list of precedents nullified and democratic institutions and principles this Supreme Court gutted or fully overturned this term is horrifying,” Jayapal said. The lawmaker warned that the Court’s tirade isn’t done; the Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could allow politicians to draw gerrymandered maps, and Justice Clarence Thomas has said that gay marriage and contraception access may be next on the chopping block.

    “These extreme decisions are the result of a decades-long project to stack the bench with adherents to a right-wing agenda and overrule precedent and the will of the American people. The majority has made clear it has no concern for ethics,” Jayapal said, pointing out that several Supreme Court justices allegedly lied during their confirmation proceedings about whether or not they’d uphold landmark precedents like Roe v. Wade.

    The lawmaker concluded by calling for Congress to pass several bills. First would be the Judiciary Act, which would add four seats to the Supreme Court to combat the GOP’s court packing. Second, she named the Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and Transparency Act, which would bind the Supreme Court to a code of ethics and place transparency standards on dark money and lobbying interests. And finally, she called for the passage of the Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act in order to force justices to justify decisions on whether or not to recuse themselves from cases and ban justices from trading individual stocks.

    “We do not have to simply accept the devastation of these rulings,” Jayapal said. “We must hold these rogue justices to account.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jayapal Breaks With Top Dems, Endorses Cisneros Against Anti-Abortion Incumbent

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, broke with the House Democratic leadership on Thursday and endorsed Jessica Cisneros, a human rights attorney looking to unseat anti-abortion Rep. Henry Cuellar in Texas’ 28th District.

    “At a time when our reproductive freedoms are under attack by an extremist Supreme Court, we must elect pro-choice candidates that will fight to make sure abortion remains the law of the land,” Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement to Politico just days out from next Tuesday’s primary runoff.

    “I don’t make the decision to endorse an opponent to a colleague in my caucus lightly,” Jayapal added, noting that it’s atypical for a sitting member of Congress to endorse primary challenges against incumbents in their party — though a number of prominent lawmakers, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), have also endorsed Cisneros.

    “However,” Jayapal continued, “the freedom for people to make choices about our own bodies is at stake, and I simply cannot stand by when there is a strong pro-choice, pro-worker Democrat ready to step in.”

    Cisneros, an outspoken supporter of Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and other top progressive priorities, fell just shy of defeating Cuellar in 2020, and she forced a runoff with the right-wing Democrat in the first round of voting earlier this year.

    Despite Cuellar’s steadfast opposition to abortion rights, climate action, and other key elements of his party’s agenda, the top three Democrats in the House — Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (S.C.) — have endorsed the corporate-funded incumbent’s reelection bid and campaigned on his behalf in the final stretch of the race.

    “Pelosi has endorsed me. Steny has endorsed me. Clyburn has endorsed me,” Cuellar bragged during a recent campaign rally.

    A number of political vendors approved by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — the campaign arm of House Democrats — are also working to reelect Cuellar as the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority appears poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in the coming weeks, potentially paving the way for a nationwide abortion ban.

    Earlier this month, Cisneros called on the House Democratic leadership to drop its support for Cuellar, declaring that “with the House majority on the line, he could very much be the deciding vote on the future of our reproductive rights and we cannot afford to take that risk.”

    “On May 24th, we will defeat the last anti-choice Democrat and South Texas will finally have a representative in their corner that will fight for their healthcare and freedom,” Cisneros said in a statement. “I hope Democratic Party leadership won’t stand in the way of delivering for South Texans. I am ready to work with them to deliver on the Democratic agenda.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressives Say Abbott’s “Near Monopoly” Laid Groundwork for Baby Food Shortage

    In a push to urge President Joe Biden to take executive action to ease the nationwide baby food shortage, progressive lawmakers are saying that manufacturer Abbott Nutrition should face particular scrutiny for its role in causing the problem.

    Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-New York), Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts), Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Grace Meng (D-New York) sent a letter to Biden urging him to “do everything within your executive authority, across all federal agencies,” to ease the shortage. They say that the president can use the Defense Production Act and powers given to him through the COVID-19 emergency declaration to ease what the lawmakers deem a “crisis.”

    “What’s good for our babies is good for our nation, and we must utilize every tool to respond to this crisis expeditiously and comprehensively with the expectation of never allowing it to repeat,” they write. “No corner of the nation is exempt from the infant formula shortage. We write on behalf of our constituents who have shared heartbreaking experiences of driving multiple hours in hopes of finding a store with baby formula in stock, oftentimes only to be met with empty shelves or rising prices.”

    The lawmakers call out Abbott Nutrition, which accounts for about 20 percent of the infant formula market, for its role in the shortage. Abbott and three other manufacturers control nearly 90 percent of the U.S. market. In recent years, the company has also had several recalls on its formula because of contamination with harmful bacteria. Federal officials have linked two infant deaths and several hospitalizations to the contaminated formula, though Abbott denies the correlation.

    “The harm this corporate greed and industry oligopoly have caused cannot be overstated,” the letter says. “In the same month that health hazards were identified and ignored at Abbott Nutrition’s facility, their sales grew, despite pandemic woes. Abbott Nutrition’s near monopoly has made the American public all the more vulnerable to the harmful consequences of pandemic profiteering.”

    There may be weight behind the lawmakers’ assertions. Sen. Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) is launching an investigation into Abbott Laboratories’ tax rates and stock buybacks, saying that the company’s profit-seeking may have directly caused or exacerbated the shortage.

    The lawmakers conclude by saying that the industry should be examined by federal officials in order to identify problem areas and form a regulatory framework to prevent such a shortage from ever happening again. “In the wealthiest nation in the world, a formula shortage is a form of violence that should be absolutely inconceivable,” they say.

    The way that the baby food market is structured may also be to blame for the shortage. Since just a few manufacturers control so much of the market, recalls have an outsized effect on supply. The virtual monopolies’ grip on the market also helps to further concentrate their power, raising potential antitrust concerns, the American Prospect reports.

    Officials within the Biden administration also acknowledge Abbott’s role in the shortage. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg has placed much of the blame on Abbott. “Fundamentally, we are here because a company was not able to guarantee that its plant was safe,” he said on CBS on Sunday, referring to an Abbott plant in Michigan that was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this year. “And that plant has shut down.”

    On Monday, the company reached an agreement with the FDA to reopen the plant in hopes of easing the shortage, under the condition that the company correct its previous sanitation issues. Still, it may be weeks or months before production from the reinstated plant has an effect on the supply of baby formula, and it likely will be longer still before supplies return to normal levels.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Warren Unveils New Bill Binding Supreme Court Judges to Ethics Code

    As public trust in the Supreme Court rapidly erodes, Democrats in Congress are working to tighten ethics laws around federal courts and increase transparency in order to combat corruption and increase accountability in the U.S. court system.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) introduced a bill on Tuesday that would ban federal judges from trading individual stocks to avoid conflicts of interest and tighten restrictions on gifts they can receive and privately funded events they can attend.

    The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act contains several provisions aimed specifically at the Supreme Court. It would create a binding requirement for judges in the Supreme Court to adhere to the court’s Code of Conduct. The Supreme Court is the only court in the country that isn’t bound by the ethics guidelines, and court watchdogs say that all nine judges are culpable of some kind of oversight.

    “At a time when public trust in the Supreme Court has collapsed to historic lows, it’s critical that we enact legislation to reform this broken system,” Warren said in a statement. “From banning federal judges from owning individual stocks to overhauling the broken judicial recusal process, my bill would help root out corruption and restore public trust in the federal judiciary – something that Chief Justice [John] Roberts has simply failed to do.”

    Under the bill, Supreme Court judges would have to issue a written recusal decision when a litigant requests recusal, and the Judicial Conference, which oversees federal courts, would have to issue advisory opinions on recusal. These provisions could work to ensure that judges on the High Court are held to higher account when they don’t recuse themselves from cases in which they may hold personal biases or conflicts of interest.

    This provision is especially relevant in current applications toward Judge Clarence Thomas, who has been under increased scrutiny due to his wife’s role in the far right’s attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Warren and Jayapal have previously requested that Thomas be recused from cases relating to the January 6 attempted coup or cases otherwise relating to that election.

    Six senators and 13 House representatives have cosponsored the legislation, which lawmakers say is overdue and could be crucial in eliminating ethics concerns and boosting public confidence in the court system.

    The bill would also improve disclosure requirements regarding case assignments and bar courts from sealing case records relating to public health or safety.

    “The American people have lost faith in the federal judiciary,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in a statement. CREW is among a host of progressive and watchdog organizations that have endorsed the legislation. “The Judicial Ethics and Anti-Corruption Act goes a long way to fixing that, taking immediate steps to end financial conflicts of interest and overhauling the Supreme Court’s broken judicial recusal regime. Democracy simply does not work when a judicial system is viewed with suspicion. It is past time for Congress to act to rebuild trust in our judicial system and make clear that judges are not above the law.”

    Warren and Jayapal’s proposal comes at a time in which public trust in the Supreme Court is falling. Last year, the Supreme Court’s public approval rating sank below 50 percent, according to Gallup polling. This trust has been especially eroded in recent months – a new poll released Tuesday by Yahoo News/YouGov finds that 53 percent of Americans have little to no confidence in the Supreme Court. This stands in sharp contrast to a September 2020 poll, taken just after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, in which only 30 percent of voters said they didn’t have much trust in the court.

    In the intervening time between the 2020 poll and the most recent poll, Republicans gained a supermajority in the Supreme Court. Since then, they have taken increasingly radical steps, including potentially overturning Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion from the Court appears to suggest that the conservative judges are poised to do.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sanders Says It’s Time to “End the Failed War on Drugs” and Legalize Marijuana

    On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) called for marijuana to be legalized and for past marijuana-related convictions to be erased, as legislation to do so has stalled in the Senate.

    “Legalize marijuana. Expunge past marijuana convictions. End the failed War on Drugs,” Sanders wrote on Twitter.

    Sanders’s statement came among an influx of other legislators calling for the passage of the Marijuana Opportunity and Reinvestment (MORE) Act, which the House voted to pass earlier this month. The bill, which would allow people convicted of certain marijuana crimes to have their records expunged and fully decriminalize marijuana across the country, has stalled in the Senate, where it has little chance of passing due to Republican opposition and the filibuster.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) called for the abolishment of the filibuster in order to pass the legislation. “Today would be a great day for the Senate to end the filibuster and pass the MORE Act — which would legalize marijuana and expunge records,” Jayapal said on Wednesday.

    Senate Democrats say that they’re working on their own legislation to legalize marijuana that would tweak the way marijuana importers and sellers are taxed.

    Legalizing marijuana is a hugely popular issue among voters. In November, Gallup found that support for marijuana legalization, which has been increasing steadily over the past decades, is at an all-time high of 68 percent.

    Drug legalization advocates and people convicted of marijuana-related crimes say that the passage of the MORE Act could be a huge advancement of social justice in the country. Black people are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana; Black and Latino men also receive longer prison sentences than white men arrested on similar drug charges.

    Even with legalization, these racist disparities remain. In every state where marijuana is currently legal, Black people are still more likely to be arrested for marijuana-related charges.

    The MORE Act takes steps to try to alleviate racial justice issues created by marijuana criminalization and the war on drugs by taxing sales on legal marijuana and redistributing the funds to communities that were especially damaged by the war on drugs. It would also require the Bureau of Labor Statistics to regularly publish data on the demographics of marijuana business owners and employees in hopes of bringing transparency to the industry, which is currently mostly white-owned.

    Some social justice activists have also been seeking to create democratically-owned businesses as the marijuana industry develops from its nascent stages. In Rhode Island, for instance, workers are asking state legislators to reserve licenses for worker-owned cooperatives within the industry in order to ensure that there’s space for more equitable businesses with support and participation from the communities they serve.

    Legalizing marijuana could also be a huge boon for the government’s coffers. A recent report found that states that have decriminalized marijuana have collected more than $10 billion in tax revenues since 2014. Additionally, a study released last week found that legal marijuana reduces demand for prescription drugs obtained through Medicaid funded by state programs.

    “The reductions in drug utilization that we find could lead to significant cost savings for state Medicaid programs,” said Shyam Raman, a doctoral student at Cornell University and co-author of the study. “The results also indicate an opportunity to reduce the harm that can come with the dangerous side effects associated with some prescription drugs.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Ocasio-Cortez Warns That Allowing Congress to Trade Stock Erodes Democracy

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) pushed to pass a stock trading ban for lawmakers last week, warning that if such legislation isn’t passed, bad faith actors will take advantage of public mistrust in Congress over members’ ability to trade stocks in order to erode democracy.

    In a press conference calling for Congress to pass a ban on stock trading, Ocasio-Cortez said that the issue “isn’t just about actual impropriety, but … about the perception of impropriety.” One of the many consequences of corruption and insider trading within Congress, she pointed out, is that it undermines the public’s trust in the nation’s top legislative body.

    The nation is currently “tackling a crisis of faith in our institutions,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And that exploitation of that crisis of faith is a direct threat to our democracy, as we have seen over the last 2 to 4 years…. because it is these perceptions that can be exploited to undermine our most sacred institutions.” There is a “very direct connection” between public distrust of Congress and the erosion of democracy, she went on.

    On Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez spoke with Democrats in the House and the Senate calling for lawmakers to pass a stock trading ban. The press conference came directly after a House Administration Committee hearing examining the issue, which has bipartisan support in Congress.

    “We have to be able to assure the American people … that they don’t have to worry about if they’re competing with their member of Congress’s stock portfolio in order to be heard,” Ocasio-Cortez concluded. “It’s a pretty simple concept.”

    There are several proposals to ban stock trading; Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colorado) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), among others, introduced a bipartisan bill called the Ban Conflicted Stock Trading Act last year, which would ban lawmakers and their spouses from trading individual stocks while in office. The bill would give lawmakers the option to sell the stocks before taking office or move them into a blind trust, similar to Senators Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) and Mark Kelly’s (D-Arizona) bill.

    Also before Congress is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D-Washington) bipartisan bill that would force members and their spouses to divest entirely from stocks other than widely held investment funds, which they would only be allowed to trade if there were no conflicts of interest. Government watchdog group Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington says that full divestment from individual stocks is crucial to the success of the ban.

    “Don’t forget that a very small percentage of the American people actually own stocks. This is a privilege of the wealthiest to even own stock,” Jayapal said. “Let’s be clear that there is something very wrong when people who do own stock look at the trades of members of Congress in order to determine whether or not they should buy a stock. There is a direct correlation.”

    Members of Congress as a whole frequently beat the market in stock trading — and the trades they make are often valued in the millions. Last year, members of Congress bought and sold nearly $290 million in stocks.

    Democrats are working on consensus legislation to bring to a vote, but there isn’t yet a timeline for when a bill could be passed. On Thursday, Merkley said that Democratic lawmakers are “essentially unanimous” in their support for a ban. Although some Republicans have voiced their opposition, a handful of Republicans have cosponsored or helped to introduce multiple bills, indicating that there could be enough support among the caucus to overcome a 60-vote filibuster in the Senate.

    Banning stock trading within Congress is enormously popular with voters. Poll after poll has found that voters across the political spectrum are in favor of the idea; a January survey from Data for Progress found that, when presented with arguments for and against the issue, 74 percent of people supported a ban.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive Lawmakers in US and Japan Demand No-First-Use Policy on Nukes

    Dozens of progressive lawmakers in the United States and Japan are urging President Joe Biden to make a “sensible” shift and commit the U.S. to a policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons “at any time or under any circumstances.”

    The demand, which is also directed at Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, came in a letter dated Friday.

    The effort was led by lawmakers including Congressional Progressive Caucus chair U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as well as Progressive Caucus of Japan chair and Diet House of Representatives member Masaharu Nakagawa.

    The group’s call comes as Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine has escalated fears of atomic warfare, especially as Russian President Vladimir Putin has waved a “nuclear saber” with recent declarations.

    Biden last month signed off on his administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, a policy which, to the disappointment of nonproliferation advocates, walks back his 2020 campaign promise of no-first-use. The NPR, according to U.S. officials, instead leaves open the possible use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear warfare.

    But, the lawmakers stressed in their letter, “it is never too late to commit to a no-first-use policy.”

    Addressing the “nuclear umbrella” security alliance between the two nations, the letter states: “A no-first-use policy would not weaken the U.S. ability to protect Japan and itself from a nuclear attack. That protection is based on the promise of U.S. nuclear retaliation, not on the ability to strike first. In fact, a no-first-use policy would increase protection against a nuclear attack by reducing doubt, miscalculation, and the possibility of an accidental nuclear launch.”

    Additionally, “a U.S. declaration stating that it would never start a nuclear war, supported by Japan, would breathe new life into international efforts to reduce and eventually eliminate the danger of nuclear war,” the lawmakers assert. “This is especially important at a time when tensions between the nuclear-weapons-possessing states, especially between the United States and China, are increasing.”

    As The Associated Press reported Saturday, Russia’s attack on Ukraine has added new fears of a nuclear exchange.

    “For U.S. officials and world leaders, discussions of how to respond to a limited nuclear attack are no longer theoretical,” AP reported.

    “One overarching concern is that by casting some nuclear weapons as tactical weapons to be used in battle, Russia could break the nearly eight-decade global taboo against using a nuclear weapon against another country.” Yet, AP added, “even comparatively small tactical nuclear weapons approach the strength of the atomic bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in World War II.”

    The demand to the U.S. and Japanese leaders came a week after 16 Nobel Peace Prize winners released an open letter calling for an immediate end to the assault of Ukraine and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

    “The time to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons is now. It is the only way to guarantee that the inhabitants of the planet will be safe from this existential threat,” they wrote.

    “It is either the end of nuclear weapons,” they said, “or the end of us.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Democrats Schedule First COVID-Era Hearing on Medicare for All

    Rep. Cori Bush speaks at a House Judiciary Committee hearing at the U.S. Capitol on October 21, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Democrats in the House Oversight Committee have scheduled the first hearing to consider Medicare for All since the onset of the pandemic, as progressive lawmakers wage a new push for the proposal.

    Oversight Committee Chair Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-New York) and Rep. Cori Bush (D-Missouri) will lead the hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, to consider proposals for universal health care and to assess the ways that the U.S.’s primarily private health care system is affecting people without insurance.

    The hearing will also feature Representatives Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-New York), Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts), as well as testimony from big names in the Medicare for All sphere, like activist Ady Barkan and economics professor Jeffrey Sachs, among others.

    “We deserve a health care system that prioritizes people over profits, humanity over greed, and compassion over exploitation,” Bush wrote on Thursday. “That’s why we’re holding our first Medicare for All hearing since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This policy will save lives.”

    This is the latest move in progressive lawmakers’ recent push to revive the campaign for Medicare for All, which has been relatively dormant in Congress for several years; the last time Democrats held a hearing on the subject was 2019.

    In the hearing, lawmakers will cover Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D-Washington) Medicare for All Act, which would establish a single-payer health care system and which recently surpassed a record 120 cosponsors. Democrats will also discuss inequities faced by non-white people, people with disabilities and LGBTQ people, who are disproportionately underinsured or uninsured.

    “As chairwoman of the Oversight Committee,” Maloney told The Nation, “I am holding this hearing to examine how the gaps in our current system threaten the health of the most vulnerable among us and how Congress can ensure that every person in this country has access to high-quality health care — no matter who they are.”

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) recently announced that he is planning to reintroduce his Medicare for All legislation; the last time he did so was in 2019.

    “In the midst of the current set of horrors — war, oligarchy, pandemics, inflation, climate change, etc. — we must continue the fight to establish healthcare as a human right, not a privilege,” Sanders wrote. The Vermont lawmaker also recently called for all medical debt to be abolished.

    The hearing comes during a pandemic that has exposed major cracks in the U.S. health care system. In the early months of the pandemic, an estimated 7.7 million people lost health care coverage after losing their jobs, leaving them in the lurch as COVID-19 swept the U.S., the only wealthy country in the world that doesn’t have universal health care.

    As the pandemic continues, disparities in pandemic-related health outcomes have become even more clear. A survey last year found that about 1 in every 3 COVID deaths and 40 percent of cases are linked to a lack of health insurance. Another study found that for every 10 percent increase in a county’s rate of uninsured people, the county experienced 70 percent more COVID infections and 50 percent more deaths.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive Urge Biden to Take 55 Executive Actions to Advance Domestic Agenda

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of Congressional Progressive Caucus, speaks during a news briefing at the 2022 House Democratic Caucus Issues Conference on March 10, 2022, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

    With the pivotal midterm elections looming, the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday unveiled a slate of more than 50 executive actions it is urging President Joe Biden to pursue as much of his domestic policy agenda remains stalled in Congress — thanks in large part to right-wing members of his own party.

    The CPC’s new list of executive order recommendations is broad in scope, aiming to address a variety of pressing issues including sky-high drug prices, the worsening climate emergency, the coronavirus pandemic, mounting student loan debt, and a rigged tax system — priorities that Biden vowed to tackle on the campaign trail in 2020.

    While Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the CPC chair, has said she would prefer ambitious legislation such as the Build Back Better package to more limited executive orders, that bill is dead in the Senate due to opposition from Republicans and corporate-backed Democrats such as Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), leaving the president with few other options to advance his popular agenda.

    Failure to act boldly, Jayapal and other progressives have warned, could spell disaster for Democrats in the fast-approaching midterms.

    “Congress continues to push for a robust reconciliation package that can pass both chambers, and the Progressive Caucus remains fully committed to delivering as much of the president’s agenda as we can through legislation,” Jayapal said in a statement Thursday. “But we know working people can’t wait for relief from rising costs — and that Democrats must use all the tools available to provide it, quickly.”

    Included among the 98-member CPC’s list of 55 proposed executive orders are steps Biden can take unilaterally to:

    • Protect seniors’ ability to manage their own care in traditional Medicare by quickly transitioning away from the ACO REACH pilot program;
    • Dramatically lower costs of essential drugs like insulin, naloxone, hepatitis C drugs, HIV/AIDS drugs, Xtandi, EpiPens, and inhalers;
    • Expand public manufacturing capacity for Covid-19 vaccine and therapeutic production;
    • Put money back in the pockets of millions of Americans who are stuck in the student debt trap… by using existing administrative authority under section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to cancel federal student loan debt;
    • Give millions of workers more take-home pay by strengthening outdated overtime protections;
    • Stop the expansion of private prisons to detain immigrants;
    • Declare a National Climate Emergency and invoke authorities under the Defense Production Act and Trade Expansion Act, mobilizing domestic industry to manufacture affordable renewable energy technologies with good-paying union jobs;
    • Declare a ban on new fossil fuel leases on federal lands and waters and in environmental justice communities;
    • Raise billions by closing the carried interest loophole that lets Wall Street executives managing other peoples’ money disguise part of their salary as investment returns to cut their taxes; and
    • Reverse Trump administration regulations that further expanded the offshore tax loopholes created by the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

    “Taken together,” Jayapal said Thursday, “these actions will have an immediate and meaningful impact on people’s lives: lowering costs and raising wages for working people to provide urgently needed economic relief, advancing racial and gender equity by investing in communities that have historically been neglected, and delivering on our promises.”

    “We look forward to working with the Biden administration to realize these ambitious, but highly achievable, goals,” she added.

    Despite grassroots pressure that has continued to grow since he took office last January, Biden has thus far rebuffed calls to broadly cancel student loan debt despite evidence that failure to do so could harm Democrats’ chances in the midterms, particularly by suppressing turnout among young voters.

    A recent survey found that one in five Democratic voters overall “won’t support Biden in 2024 without action on student loans.”

    In a statement endorsing the CPC’s recommendations, Lauren Maunus of the youth-led Sunrise Movement said that “young people mobilized and risked their lives through a pandemic to deliver Biden the presidency on his promises to stop the climate crisis, cancel student loan debt, and ensure real change for our communities.”

    “But two years into his term, and two years further into the climate crisis, we have yet to see the type of bold action we were promised,” Maunus continued. “As we face a historic crossroad in the fight to protect democracy and defeat white supremacy, it’s beyond time for Biden to use the full powers of the presidency to deliver for the people who elected him and address the interlocking crises of our times.”

    “If he doesn’t,” Maunus added, “Biden risks not only alienating his own base, but failing to stop the worst of the climate crisis while he had the chance.”

    Mary Small, national advocacy director of the progressive advocacy group Indivisible, similarly argued that the power to advance key Democratic priorities “is in President Biden’s hands.”

    “Even as we continue to push for Congress to end its political theater and finally deliver on his legislative agenda, our network is calling for simultaneous and complementary executive action,” said Small. “We’ve already been engaged in pushing for the administration to provide relief for those with student loan debt and to address the climate crisis. We echo the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ call: President Biden can and must use the full authority of his office to deliver change wherever possible, as soon as possible.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • House Lawmakers Say Amazon May Have Illegally Impeded Antitrust Investigation

    A sign at the Amazon.com, Inc. BHM1 fulfillment center is seen before sunrise on March 29, 2021, in Bessemer, Alabama.

    On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department to probe whether or not Amazon illegally impeded the committee’s antitrust investigation into the company.

    During the committee’s 16-month long probe that ended in 2020, the company engaged in “potentially criminal conduct,” the representatives said in a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. That top Amazon executives lied to the committee suggests that the company was attempting to “influence, obstruct, or impede” the investigation, the committee continued.

    Throughout the investigation, “Amazon repeatedly endeavored to thwart the Committee’s efforts to uncover the truth about Amazon’s business practices,” the lawmakers wrote. “For this, it must be held accountable.”

    Impeding on a congressional inquiry or investigation amounts to an obstruction of Congress, which is a federal crime. Amazon has denied that it lied during the investigation.

    Lawmakers, including committee chair Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and antitrust subcommittee vice chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), say that executives have painted a rosy picture of its internal practices regarding data collection. The company’s testimony describing its internal policies was “ever shifting,” the lawmakers said.

    While Amazon executives denied that the company was using data from third-party sellers to compete with them, testimony from Amazon employees and reporting has revealed that the company has in fact done exactly that, in order to create products that would compete with other sellers.

    Amazon employees regularly violated the company’s supposed “Seller Data Protection Policy,” making a distinction between individual data on sellers versus aggregated data for the company to use. Lawmakers said that company officials were aware that employees were violating the policy.

    Reporters have found that Amazon prioritized its own products in customer search queries, the committee said, despite the company claiming that it didn’t do so.

    Lawmakers gave the company the opportunity to correct its previous misleading statements, but the company doubled down. “After Amazon was caught in a lie and repeated misrepresentations, it stonewalled the Committee’s efforts to uncover the truth,” the letter says.

    “The Committee gave Amazon a final opportunity to provide evidence either correcting the record or corroborating the representations it had made to the Committee under oath and in written statements,” the lawmakers said. “Instead of taking advantage of this opportunity to provide clarity, however, Amazon offered conclusory denials of adverse facts.”

    As a result of the committee’s investigation, the lawmakers called for stricter regulation of Amazon and other large companies like Facebook and Google. Their 449-page report said that tech behemoths have turned into “the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons” that abuse their power to create anti-competitive conditions. Wednesday’s referral is an escalation of actions against Amazon as it faces scrutiny from members of both major political parties.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Warren, Jayapal Introduce Bill Banning Members of Congress From Trading Stock

    Senator Elizabeth Warren speaks in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on September 28, 2021.

    On Wednesday, a bipartisan, bicameral group of legislators introduced a bill that would ban members of Congress and their spouses from owning and trading stocks.

    The Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act is the first bipartisan stock trading ban to be introduced in the Senate. The bill was introduced by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Steve Daines (R-Montana) and Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) and Matt Rosendale (R-Montana). Two Senate Republicans have also cosponsored the bill.

    The proposal goes further than previous bills, forcing members of Congress and their spouses to divest from all stocks other than widely held, diversified investment funds like mutual funds. Such investments could still be traded as long as there are no conflicts of interest. If members are found violating the law, they would be fined up to $50,000 per infraction.

    This legislation goes a step further than the bill introduced by Senators Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia) and Mark Kelly (D-Arizona) last month, which bans stock trading for lawmakers and their families but allows them to retain ownership of their stock portfolios as long as they are put in a blind trust while lawmakers are in office. If a lawmaker is familiar with their portfolio, in other words, they could still influence their stocks even if they aren’t in direct control of them.

    The bipartisan bill’s sponsors emphasized that the proposal is a critical measure to increase transparency and trust in Congress.

    “No one should ever have to wonder whether their Member of Congress is working for the public interest or their own financial interest,” Warren said.

    Jayapal said that the bill could reduce corruption in the legislative branch. “Members of Congress were elected to serve the people, not their personal financial interests. But as long as members and spouses are allowed to hold and trade stocks, we keep the door open to corruption – and that cannot stand,” she said. “It’s good policy, and it’s simply the right thing to do.”

    The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a government watchdog, praised the bill, noting that stock trading within Congress is an ethical concern. “Capitalizing on their privileged positions and their access to nonpublic information through inappropriate stock trading is one glaring example of this problem,” said Danielle Brian, POGO’s executive director.

    Warren has previously introduced legislation that would also bar top federal officials like judges from trading stocks, but currently, bans on stock trading for members of Congress have the most momentum. Congress has had its fair share of stock trading scandals in the past few years, and reporting has found that members of Congress regularly violate existing stock transparency laws.

    With rare bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, and support from the leaders of both chambers, the bill or legislation like it may have a shot at being passed. On Wednesday, Pelosi instructed members of Congress to draft a bill for the ban that she would bring to a vote soon.

    Still, the legislation could face a few hurdles. The idea appears to have the support of most Democrats and some Republicans in the House, but Senate Republicans are split on the matter. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has said that he hasn’t decided either way on the issue, though far right Republican firebrands like Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) have signaled their support for a ban. The bill would need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Medicare for All Bill Introduced by Pramila Jayapal Gets Record 120 Cosponsors

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks as members of Congress share their recollections on the first anniversary of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2022, in the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

    A bill that would establish Medicare for All in the U.S. has reached 120 sponsors, Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) announced on Sunday.

    “We’ve officially got a record 120 co-sponsors on my Medicare for All Act!” said Jayapal, who introduced the legislation. “Thrilled to welcome Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Florida) to our fight to ensure health care as a human right!”

    Signing on to the bill as a cosponsor is one of Cherfilus-McCormick’s first acts since being sworn in as a member of Congress in mid-January. Last week, Representatives Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) also became cosponsors of the bill; original cosponsors include progressive “squad” members like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota).

    The Medicare for All Act of 2021, or H.R. 1976, would establish a single-payer healthcare system in the U.S. Under the bill, health care claims would be paid by the government and all U.S. residents would be able to access health care without having to pay out of pocket for most services.

    Jayapal’s bill would establish a more generous plan than in countries like Canada, where the single-payer health care system doesn’t cover vital services like vision, dental or prescriptions. H.R. 1976 includes those benefits as well as long-term nursing and rehabilitative services.

    For years, Medicare for All has been a rallying cry for progressives across the country, popularized by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) during his 2016 presidential run. Some experts have pointed out that the original idea behind the Medicare program was for all residents to have access to health care, not just a few.

    “We mean a complete transformation of our health care system and we mean a system where there are no private insurance companies that provide these core benefits,” Jayapal said when she introduced the bill last March. “We mean universal care, everybody in, nobody out.”

    Though the bill is unlikely to pass Congress, the record number of cosponsors suggests that pushes for Medicare for All are gaining momentum as progressives in the House are growing in number.

    When Jayapal originally introduced the bill, it had only 112 cosponsors; when she introduced it in the last Congress, it only had 106 original cosponsors. In 2019, Sanders introduced a Medicare for All bill in the Senate with 14 cosponsors. He has not reintroduced the bill in this Congress.

    “In my view, the current debate over Medicare for All really has nothing to do with health care. It’s all about greed and profiteering. It is about whether we maintain a dysfunctional system which allows the top five health insurance companies to make over $20 billion in profits last year,” Sanders said in 2019. These profits have only multiplied since the start of the pandemic.

    Polling has found that a majority of Americans favor proposals for Medicare for All. But while the idea has gained some steam in Congress over the past years, it still faces fierce opposition from lobbyists and the lawmakers they solicit.

    Private health insurers are making record profits while insuring fewer people; reports have found that the U.S.’s health expenditures are the highest among member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), while the U.S.’s health care system ranks last on measures like access, efficiency, equity and health outcomes. Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies are hugely reliant on profits generated by U.S. citizens, and a report last year found that prices for top prescription drugs are as much as 10 times higher in the U.S. than they are in other countries.

    Lobbyists, looking to maintain these profits, play a huge role in the legislative equation – according to Politico, the health care industry lobby has created an “army” to fight Medicare for All in Congress, developing cozy relationships with Democrats and Republicans alike. Last year, health insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists maxed out their donations to Democrats as they were crafting the Build Back Better Act, which included proposals that took aim at sky-high prescription drug prices.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • “There Is No Military Solution” to Russia Tensions, Progressive Lawmakers Say

    Rep. Barbara Lee participates in a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee, two top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, implored the Biden administration on Wednesday to urgently pursue a diplomatic outcome in Ukraine, warning that “there is no military solution” to surging tensions with Russia.

    “Diplomacy needs to be the focus,” Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the CPC, and Lee (D-Calif.), the head of the caucus’ Peace and Security Taskforce, said in a statement.

    While voicing support for the Biden administration’s efforts to “extend and deepen the dialogue” with Russia amid fears of a disastrous war involving two nuclear-armed nations, the two progressive lawmakers raised alarm over the flow of U.S. arms into Ukraine and the prospect of American troops being deployed to Eastern Europe.

    “We have significant concerns that new troop deployments… and a flood of hundreds of lethal weapons will only raise tensions and increase the chance of miscalculation,” Jayapal and Lee said as their party’s leadership planned to fast-track legislation authorizing $500 million in U.S. military aid to Ukraine.

    The pair also warned against imposing “sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions” on Russia, arguing such a tactic would do more harm than good.

    “In past crises, where events are moving quickly and intelligence is unclear, vigorous, delicate diplomacy is essential to de-escalation,” the lawmakers said. “We call upon our colleagues to allow the administration to find a diplomatic way out of this crisis.”

    Jayapal and Lee’s statement came shortly before the U.S. on Wednesday delivered a written response to Russia’s security demands on Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance that Ukraine is looking to join. Russia sees the admission of Ukraine into NATO as a serious security threat.

    As the Associated Press reported, “Moscow has demanded guarantees that NATO will never admit the country and other ex-Soviet nations as members and that the alliance will roll back troop deployments in other former Soviet bloc nations.”

    “Some of these, like the membership pledge, are nonstarters for the U.S. and its allies, creating a seemingly intractable stalemate that many fear can only end in a war,” AP noted.

    While the details of the U.S. response to Russia have not been made public, Secretary of State Antony Blinken indicated Wednesday that the Biden administration did not make any concessions to Moscow’s top demands, which are laid out in a draft security pact.

    “We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend, including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances,” said Blinken, who met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in person last week.

    Lavrov, for his part, told reporters Wednesday that “if the West continues its aggressive course, Moscow will take the necessary retaliatory measures.”

    “We won’t allow our proposals to be drowned in endless discussions,” he added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 25 House Democrats Urge Pelosi to Bring Congressional Stock Trading Ban to Vote

    Representatives Rashida Tlaib, left, and Pramila Jayapal speak at a campaign event in Clive, Iowa, on January 31, 2020.

    On Monday, a group of 27 House representatives sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) urging them to pass legislation that would bar Congress from trading stocks.

    The letter calls such a ban a “common-sense” move that has the support of both Democrats and Republicans in the chamber. “Both of you have recently addressed this issue in public comments, but this glaring problem will not go away until it is fixed and Congress should not delay when we have the power to fix it,” the letter read.

    The effort has rare bipartisan support, with 25 Democrats and two Republicans signing on to the letter. This includes progressives like Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan), Katie Porter (D-California) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) as well as Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) from the far right.

    Lawmakers said that any legislation, whether written by Democrats or Republicans, can be brought to the floor, as long as it is done swiftly. They cite Sen. Jon Ossoff’s (D-Georgia) Ban Conflicted Stock Trading Act or Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-Virginia) and Rep. Chip Roy’s (R-Texas) TRUST in Congress Act that were both introduced recently as bills that could be brought to a vote soon.

    Both bills would bar members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children from trading stocks while in office. Aside from certain investments like those in diversified mutual funds or U.S. treasury bonds, portfolios would have to be put in a blind trust.

    The letter comes just after Pelosi made a slight heel turn on the issue last week. While she doesn’t “buy into” the issue, she said, the speaker said that she would be open to supporting her caucus if members are in favor of the ban. The Speaker had previously sparked ire when she defended members’ ability to trade stocks, saying that they should be able to participate in the “free market economy.”

    McCarthy, who would likely become speaker of the House if Republicans take control of the chamber in the midterm elections, also voiced his support for the issue this month.

    As the letter points out, Congress members’ ability to trade stocks is eroding public trust and leads to corruption. Though it is technically illegal for lawmakers to act on nonpublic information to trade stocks, it can be difficult to determine the true cause of certain stock trades.

    “The law prohibits only those stock trades that members of Congress make or direct because of their nonpublic knowledge,” the lawmakers wrote, referring to a 2020 stock trading scandal involving several senators making trades after receiving confidential information on the pandemic’s economic effects. “But it can be nearly impossible to determine what counts as ‘nonpublic knowledge’ or how personally involved members are in their stock trades.”

    Lawmakers also frequently break the law outright in regards to stock trading disclosures. The 2012 STOCK Act instituted disclosure requirements to increase transparency of Congress members’ stock trades.

    But since the penalty for failing to disclose trades on time is small – often just a $200 fine – lawmakers and their staffers have little incentive to report their trades, even when they represent clear conflicts of interest. An investigation last year by Insider found that at least 54 members of Congress have violated the STOCK Act, with many late disclosures being worth upwards of a million dollars.

    Regardless of the legality of these actions, the letter writers said that being able to trade stocks distracts lawmakers from doing their job to protect and serve their constituents. “Perhaps this means some of our colleagues will miss out on lucrative investment opportunities. We don’t care,” they wrote. “We came to Congress to serve our country, not turn a quick buck.”

    Polling has found that the public also agrees that Congress shouldn’t be allowed to trade stocks. A recent Data for Progress poll found that 74 percent of likely voters support such a ban when presented with arguments for and against the proposal. This includes 75 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If Dems Don’t Deliver on Health Care, They May Suffer in Midterms, Jayapal Warns

    Demonstrators rally in front of PhRMA's Washington office to protest high prescription drug prices on September 21, 2021.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal warned Monday that the upcoming midterm elections could be painful for Democrats if they fail to substantively deliver on their healthcare-related campaign promises, which ranged from tackling sky-high drug prices to lowering the Medicare eligibility age.

    “It has been a concern for us,” Jayapal (D-Wash.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act of 2021, told the Washington Post. “You can see it with the number of Democrats in vulnerable districts across the country who want to be able to go back and tell people that we’ve lowered their costs for child care, for pre-K, for elder care, for drug pricing, for healthcare.”

    The stagnation of Democrats’ $1.75 trillion Build Back Better package — thanks in large part to opposition from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other right-wing lawmakers — has increased the likelihood that the party will enter campaign season having accomplished little on healthcare, which voters consistently view as a top priority.

    Republicans, which have obstructed their Democratic counterparts at every turn, are already favored to retake the House in the midterms, riding a wave of voter suppression and aggressive map-rigging.

    The current, dramatically scaled-back version of the Build Back Better Act includes a new hearing benefit for Medicare, provisions to reduce sky-high prescription drug costs, and policy changes aimed at addressing the Medicaid coverage gap.

    More sweeping proposals to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 and add dental and vision coverage to the program were removed at the behest of corporate-backed right-wing Democrats, including Manchin.

    The Medicare for All Act — which has the support of a majority of the House Democratic caucus and the public, but not President Joe Biden — hasn’t even been put on the table for discussion. The Democratic Party’s 2020 platform, unveiled in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, mentions Medicare for All just once but does not endorse it.

    With Congress and the Biden administration failing to act, pharmaceutical companies are raising prices for prescription drugs at will and Medicare beneficiaries are facing a massive premium hike — neither of which bode well for the party in full control of the federal government.

    The healthcare provisions that have survived Build Back Better talks thus far are likely to crumble if Democrats aren’t able to salvage the bill, which has been put on hold as the party focuses on voting rights legislation that also faces long odds in the Senate.

    “We’ve campaigned for a long time on taking it to the drug companies and passing the bulk negotiation of prices. It’s something that voters understand,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told the Post. “I think it’s problematic if we can’t get that done.”

    With the full Build Back Better Act stuck in the Senate, some vulnerable frontline Democrats are calling on the party’s leadership to break the bill into pieces and hold votes on popular individual elements, including prescription drug price reforms.

    “People want to know that the people they elect can get things done that are going to make a difference in the lives of ordinary citizens,” said Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.), who narrowly won reelection in 2020.

    But some outside progressives argue such an approach would be a mistake and would not increase the likelihood of passage given that individual bills, unlike the full reconciliation package, would be subject to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster.

    “Breaking up BBB at this point when Democrats have foolishly given away all their leverage (by releasing [the bipartisan infrastructure bill]) will only reward and embolden obstruction — while further diluting an already milquetoast bill,” tweeted progressive media strategist Murshed Zaheed.

    Ellen Sciales, a spokesperson for the youth-led Sunrise Movement, echoed that criticism in a statement to the Post.

    “The idea of breaking up BBB into smaller bills is a false choice for Democrats,” she said. “Everything in the Build Back Better Act is urgently needed.”

    “Democrats have a trifecta right now, and instead of pitting programs and communities against each other, the White House and Senate leaders should figure out a way to bring the last two senators on board,” Sciales added, referring to Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.). “It’s clear the tactic of negotiating in private is failing, and we’re quickly losing our window of opportunity to act.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive Lawmakers Signal Support for Four-Day Workweek Proposal

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal

    As the movement for a shorter workweek gains steam across the country, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has endorsed a House bill that would establish a 32-hour workweek as the nationwide standard for full-time work.

    The proposal was filed earlier this year by caucus member Rep. Mark Takano (D-California) and would shorten the standard workweek by lowering the threshold for overtime compensation from 40 hours to 32 hours. With standard eight-hour workdays, this would translate to a four-day workweek.

    Though the proposal stands little chance of passing Congress, the caucus’s support is a signal that progressives lawmakers are listening to the demands of the labor movement, which has fought to shorten the workweek for centuries and often succeeded. The CPC has nearly 100 members, including 96 House members and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

    Takano said he was pleased that the caucus endorsed his bill, adding that the measure would lead to an “improved quality of life for workers.”

    “After a nearly two-year-long pandemic that forced millions of people to explore remote work options, it’s safe to say that we can’t – and shouldn’t – simply go back to normal, because normal wasn’t working,” Takano said. “People were spending more time at work, less time with loved ones, their health and well-being was worsening, and all the while, their pay has remained stagnant.”

    CPC chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) praised the bill, similarly highlighting stagnant wages. “It is past time that we put people and communities over corporations and their profits — finally prioritizing the health, wellbeing, and basic human dignity of the working class rather than their employers’ bottom line,” she said.

    The 40-hour workweek was won by the labor movement in the early 20th century as a response to grueling working conditions during the Industrial Revolution. By 1890, workers were routinely working through exploitative conditions and 100-hour weeks where they were given either one day off or none at all. Workers in trade unions blazed a path for the 40-hour workweek, which was implemented by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and which remains the standard to this day.

    Nearly 90 years later, labor advocates say that the five-day, 40-hour workweek has become outdated. Not only can modern labor practices and automation accelerate work, pilot programs in other countries have found that shorter workweeks actually increase productivity.

    While the 4-day workweek proposal wouldn’t apply to gig workers and workers who are exempt from overtime, the proposal could dramatically change work culture in the U.S. and spark movements among exempt workers to demand similar change within their own workplaces. A shorter workweek could also free up hours for organizing coworkers for collective bargaining and improving other working conditions.

    Research has shown that on average, American workers spend more time at work than workers in comparable countries. Analyzing data from 2019, the People’s Policy Project found that not only are American workers squeezed harder than those in other countries, but also that overworking is inefficient, as Americans work more hours than workers in countries with a comparable Gross Domestic Product. This is partially due to a work culture and political system that values capitalistic output and supposed productivity over everything else — almost entirely at the expense of the working class.

    Research has demonstrated the enormous physical and mental toll of overworking; in May, a study found that nearly 750,000 people around the world die each year due to heart disease and strokes brought on by long working hours, making overworking and burnout a matter of life and death. Of course, conservative lawmakers have shown no interest in resolving these issues, instead glorifying measures like work requirements for people to access resources they need to survive.

    While a four-day workweek wouldn’t solve widespread issues of exploitation, labor advocates say it’s a necessary step toward a healthier work culture in the U.S. Work often extends far beyond the time that someone is actually on the clock, advocates have pointed out — workplaces stressors often creep into people’s personal lives, making days off little more than time to recuperate before clocking in again.

    “The benefits of a four-day workweek to us as individuals and our work culture are clear: better physical and mental health, fewer burnt-out employees, more equitable workplace outcomes, and so on,” Austin Cole, board member at 4 Day Week US, wrote for Truthout. “But to me, a reduction of working hours for the same pay isn’t about those benefits — it’s fundamentally about justice.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • At Least 40 Democrats Are Now Calling for Boebert to Be Removed From Committees

    Rep. Lauren Boebert, center, conducts a news conference with members of the House Freedom Caucus outside the Capitol to oppose the Equality Act on February 25, 2021.

    As Democratic leaders consider their options to punish Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) for her Islamophobic comments toward Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), the list of Democrats calling for Boebert to be removed from her committee assignments is growing.

    On Thursday, 38 progressive lawmakers in the House released a statement in support of the punishment for Boebert. Led by Representatives Jamaal Bowman (D-New York), Cori Bush (D-Missouri), André Carson (D-Indiana) and Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington), the lawmakers decried Republican leaders’ tacit endorsement of hate speech against Omar and Muslims across the country.

    Over past weeks, videos have emerged showing Boebert spewing animus toward Omar, implying that the progressive lawmaker is a terrorist and saying that she is part of the so-called “jihad squad,” a bigoted nickname for progressive lawmakers dubbed by Republicans.

    The lawmakers condemned House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-California) for his silence on the issue, pointing out that Boebert has refused to apologize for her Islamophobic attacks.

    “In the face of death threats and vitriol being spewed at Rep. Omar, Representative Kevin McCarthy (CA-23)’s decision to allow and embolden continued hostility from his members speaks clearly to the Republican party’s willingness to allow hate and division to grow at the expense of our people, our values, and our institutions,” the lawmakers wrote.

    The progressives went on to say that they “refuse to stand by as Islamophobia, anti-Blackness, anti-immigrant sentiment, and xenophobia are trafficked into the halls of Congress by members of the Republican party.” Pursuing disciplinary action against Boebert, they said, is a crucial step towards accountability — not only to Omar and fellow members of Congress, but also to the Muslim community at large.

    “Muslims across the country are looking to Congress at this moment, watching to see if those they sent to represent their interests in Washington are going to stand up in the face of blatant, vicious Islamophobia. We owe it to them… to stand up and show them that their votes to send us here mean something — that our values mean something, and are worth defending,” the statement concluded.

    The 38 lawmakers, including Representatives Ayanna Pressley (D-Massachusetts) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), are joining a growing coalition of Democrats calling for Boebert to be disciplined.

    On Wednesday, leaders of five caucuses also led a call for Boebert’s removal from committees. Jayapal, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Congressional Asian Pacific American Chair Judy Chu (D-California), Congressional Equality Caucus Chair David Cicilline (D-Rhode Island) and Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Raul Ruiz (D-California) joined that call.

    “It should not be a partisan issue to condemn the explicit harassment and dangerous abuse of a colleague based on their religion, but this is the level to which the GOP leader and too many members of the Republican party have sunk,” the caucus chairs wrote.

    Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) told reporters that leaders are “considering what action ought to be taken.” But Democratic leaders have since been quiet about the issue, even as Hoyer acknowledged that the “jihad squad” phrase and other similar language by far-right representatives could “inflame the passions” of potentially violent actors.

    Indeed, Omar has said that she received an uptick in death threats due to Boebert’s Islamophobic rhetoric. On Tuesday, the Democrat shared a voicemail she received that appeared to be a direct result of Boebert’s comments being posted and shared online. The caller hurled racist slurs and profanities at Omar, and threatened her life in no uncertain terms.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Manchin Refuses to Support Reconciliation Bill If It Contains Words

    Sen. Joe Manchin speaks during a news conference on the Senate Side of the U.S. Capitol Building on November 1, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    When all is said and done, there’s nothing left to say or do. That’s how I’m feeling abut the descriptive powers of the English language as it pertains to the ongoing one-man hostage crisis known as Joe “Freaking” Manchin. How many new and novel ways are there to say it? THE MAN WANTS TO DESTROY THE BUILD BACK BETTER ACT, period, and he will keep moving the goal posts until he (and his coal-soot paymasters) gets what he wants.

    How many times has this snake shed its skin? First it was the money, but then the money came down, so it became about his fear of creating an “entitlement nation.” That was a good one, coming from a senator whose West Virginia home takes in more federal aid for its citizens than any other state except New Mexico.

    Manchin did active, palpable harm to thousands of his own people when he slashed his way through the Medicare, prescription drug pricing, child care and tax reforms that one sat at the heart of President Joe Biden’s social agenda. He put life on Earth as we know it in peril by stomping out the most effective climate measures contained within the legislation. Late last week, after even more concessions from the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), the bill looked like it had a chance. Right on cue, Manchin moved the goal posts, again.

    First, though, he let everyone dangle over the weekend off the barbed hook he offered instead of a straight answer when asked if he would support the proposed legislative framework. Progress, progress, we’re making progress, muttered the Democratic crowd, but all were nervously looking over their shoulders like swimmers in well-chummed waters, waiting for the fin and the teeth and the eyes that roll over white before the chewing starts.

    On Monday morning, Manchin told CNN, “I think there needs to be clarity on where everybody stands.” By the end of the day, everyone knew where he stood, which was nowhere, again, while the bill was once more left thrashing on the deck like a boated marlin dying of fresh air in broad daylight.

    “I will not support a bill that is this consequential without thoroughly understanding the impact it will have on our national debt, our economy and the American people,” Manchin told the assembled media on Monday afternoon. “Every elected representative needs to know what they are voting for and the impact it has, not only on their constituents, but the entire country. I’m open to supporting a final bill that helps move our country forward. But I’m equally open to voting against a bill that hurts our country.”

    Fine, noble talk… and complete bullshit. Manchin knows what is and was in this legislation. The man caterwauling about its price tag was all too happy to attack and destroy all the parts of the bill that were meant to pay for the bill. There is nothing ideological about this beyond the profit ideology of his donors. If you want to kill something, you go for the heart and lungs. That is what Manchin and his pharmaceutical cohort Kyrsten Sinema have been doing all along, and that’s what Manchin did again on Monday.

    The most crass part of Manchin’s little Monday homily came when he attacked the CPC for holding the bill “hostage” because they want it passed simultaneously with the infrastructure bill. All of Congress wants the infrastructure bill: It is toothlessly bipartisan, and has already passed in the Senate by a wide margin. Yet the CPC knows that passing infrastructure without the Build Back Better Act will all but doom the Act to defeat, which is what Manchin and his money people have sought from the beginning.

    “Just want to make sure I have the past 24 hours right,” tweeted HuffPost senior politics reporter Kevin Robillard. “Progressives move towards doing what Joe Manchin wants, then he holds a press conference and says a bunch of stuff basically guaranteeing progressives won’t do what he wants.”

    Greg Sargent of The Washington Post was even more pointed. “Ugh,” he tweeted. “Just nonstop bad faith from @Sen_JoeManchin, cloaked in phony pieties casting him as the only responsible party in town.”

    For its part, the CPC continues to say all the right things about making progress and having hope. “We are taking the president’s word at the fact that he believes he can get 50 votes in the Senate,” CPC chair Pramila Jayapal said just after Manchin’s Monday presser. Jayapal made it clear that none of Manchin’s actions, now or going forward, will affect the CPC’s demand that both bills be passed together. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi continues to maintain that a vote on one or both will take place this week, even as she said the same thing last week, and the week before.

    Everyone involved is going to have to have a little come-to-Jesus moment with themselves and this whole process regarding the machinations of Joe Manchin. The man wants everything, which means he wants nothing, as in no Build Back Better Act with its pesky $550 billion in climate rescue funds. As a funny friend noted the other day, Manchin will only support a bill that contains no words. Hilarious, right? Also God’s own truth.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressive Dems Offer Simple, Brilliant Path Forward for Build Back Better Act

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal speaks to journalists surrounding her

    The debt ceiling crisis has been averted for now, albeit without a single Republican vote in the House, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaning toward using the reconciliation process to get it done. The federal highway spending authority expires in 18 days, leaving ample time to deal with it. Funding for the federal government will not expire until December 3.

    While no “top line” spending amount has been agreed to, Democrats in both chambers appear to be moving past the gut-punch of Joe Manchin’s coal-fueled intransigence, and are working to get as much as they can for the people with less money than they wanted. There is no fixed deadline for finalizing and passing the Build Back Better Act and the infrastructure bill, but Democratic leadership devoutly hopes this can get done before November.

    All in all, it’s a remarkably packed legislative calendar, and certainly the most impactful one in recent memory. Roadblocks abound, to be sure, but there is scant reason to believe it can’t all get done before the deadlines. Now would be the perfect time for all involved to pause, take a breath, and adopt a broader view of the situation beyond the reactionary WE ALL GONNA DIE fuss and feathers of standard-issue D.C. politics.

    Yeah, right. Where’s the fun (and clicks, and advertising dollars) in that kind of calm, deliberate approach? “Biden Bleeds Out,” screamed a Wednesday morning Washington Post headline. The author, Dana Milbank, even went so far as to say out loud the crappy little secret that undergirds most of the legislating that gets done in that dank and humid town: “The ultimate details are less important than passing both bills.”

    And boom goes the dynamite. Never mind the fact that the Democrats have had such trouble pushing these wildly popular bills because they have utterly failed to explain what’s so good about them. You know who cares about the details, aside from the people who would benefit from them? The legion of corporate lobbyists who are laboring night and day to destroy or denude the BBB Act specifically because of what the bill contains.

    Milbank is hardly alone. “Democrats are nowhere right now,” announces Punchbowl News. “Democrats Are In Peril,” proclaims The New York Times. “Another Bad-News Poll for Democrats,” glooms CNN. “Biden’s Approval Rating Has Fallen,” intones NBC News. Unless I missed a memo, the midterm elections are still 13 months away. This precipice President Biden and his party are allegedly dangling over appears only to exist in the hive mind of reporters who need to fill column inches every day to earn their paychecks.

    The D.C. press corps is notorious for its flock-of-birds mentality, wheeling this way and that en masse in search of — and in service to — the accepted, acceptable story line. “Dems in Disarray” has been catnip to this bunch since time out of mind, and nothing about today’s reporting suggests a change of course or an adjustment of perspective is in the offing.

    “Like wildebeests crossing the Serengeti, journalists travel in a herd,” columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Monday. “We follow not the life-giving seasonal rains but a safe, comfortable, groupthink story arc — call it The Narrative — whose current chapter is titled ‘Democrats are doomed’…. So when The Narrative warns that Biden urgently needs to get the progressives and the moderates in his party to set aside their differences, I take a somewhat different view. What I see is a pretty normal exercise in legislative give-and-take, except that it’s all happening within the Democratic Party — while Republicans hoot, holler and obstruct…”

    As has been the case throughout the hyper-chaos surrounding this process, it is the congressional progressives who have been the steadying hand of reason. After it became clear that Manchin was a hard “no” on spending $3.5 trillion on the Build Back Better Act, Democratic legislators began mulling the grim question of what to keep, and what to cut, from the bill in order to bring down its cost.

    This was an impossible conundrum: Everything in the bill is important, and quite a lot of it is nothing short of life or death. Everyone with skin in the game was prepared to fight to the knife for their priorities, and the possibility of actual party immolation became more than just an easy headline with a print deadline looming. Talk of doing “fewer things well” had House members seething all over the building, while Republicans stood back and waited for the explosion.

    Enter the Congressional Progressive Caucus with a wondrously simple solution: Chop the thing in half.

    Instead of spending $3.5 trillion over ten years, spend $1.75 to $2 trillion over five years. Keep the bill mostly if not entirely intact, and set the programs to expire in half the time. The money should be good for the likes of Manchin. By the time the programs reach their expiration dates, ones that worked well will likely have enormous popular support, and can be extended. At a bare minimum, the country will get five years of policy geared toward helping people, and not toward making rich people even richer.

    “We do believe that you can significantly cut down on the price tag by funding some of these programs for a shorter period of time,” Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Pramila Jayapal told CBS News. “Make sure that the benefits are universal and accrued to people immediately — not in three years or five years — but something that people can tangibly feel right away. And then deal with the extension of those programs down the road when people see how transformative they are.”

    Speaker Pelosi appears to be on board with the idea, which suggests it is more than halfway home. The devil remains in the details, but this suggestion is an inspired, shrewd bit of deal-making. The party would be foolish to reject it out of hand. They have more than two weeks to meet their self-imposed November deadline, at which point the other priorities will be teed up and waiting.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Elizabeth Warren Probes “Corrupt” Link Between Tax System and Private Sector

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren holds a news conference with Rep. Pramila Jayapal to announce legislation at the U.S. Capitol on March 1, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) are demanding information on “corrupt schemes” to pad accounting firms’ profits involving the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other government agencies.

    The lawmakers have sent letters to five top accounting firms asking them to detail their revolving door relationships with the government. The request comes after a September New York Times report exposing how staff and executives at accounting firms like PwC take jobs within the Treasury Department and other agencies to help write tax codes that will benefit their former companies — and then return to those companies with raises or promotions.

    The New York Times uncovered 35 examples of this practice during the last four presidential administrations, calling it a “remarkably effective behind-the-scenes system to promote [accounting firms’] interests in Washington.” Even veterans of the accounting industry admit that the revolving door is a major reason why the wealthy are able to benefit from and exploit the U.S. tax code.

    “Accounting giants are abusing the public trust and taking advantage of the revolving door between public service and private profit,” Jayapal and Warren wrote in letters to Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG and RSM.

    The lawmakers continued by citing Warren’s Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act. “Americans are sick and tired of these corrupt schemes,” they went on. “The decades-long scam in which large accounting firms have abused the revolving door between the government and the private sector to help their wealthy clients avoid paying their fair share of taxes demonstrates precisely why this legislation is necessary.”

    The Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act would draw stricter lines between the private and public sector. It bars private companies from immediately hiring people who have just left a government position, and prohibits them from incentivizing executives to enter the public sector by giving them large compensation packages, or so-called “golden parachutes.” The bill would also establish a separate government office to monitor ethics and corruption within the government.

    The lawmakers then asked the companies to disclose if, since 2001, they have had employees take positions within the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or elsewhere in the government, and then return to the company afterward. They also requested details of that employment, including what positions they took, their clients and their compensation over time.

    In at least 16 of the cases that the New York Times uncovered in September, the former government officials were promoted to partner and rewarded with double their salaries when they returned to their private sector firms.

    The lawmakers drew a direct line between the revolving door practices and the tax code. “Massive accounting firms have spent decades unethically abusing the revolving door between government and the private sector to help wealthy clients avoid paying their fair share of taxes. It’s corruption,” wrote Jayapal on Twitter.

    “The unethical revolving door of personnel between [the Treasury Department] and the biggest accounting firms has to end,” said Warren. “Americans should trust that our policies work for them, not the richest corporations.”

    A report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy earlier this year found that 55 large corporations, including FedEx, Nike and American Electric Power, paid $0 in federal income taxes in 2020. In fact, the effective tax rate was in the negatives for many of these companies, partially thanks to the 2017 tax cuts implemented by former President Donald Trump and the GOP.

    Recent plans to tax corporations by lawmakers like Warren have been met with the cold shoulder by conservatives in Congress, however. Many of them — like Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona) — enjoy close relationships with deep-pocketed lobbyists. And despite the fact that major accounting firms like Deloitte and PwC have a revolving door relationship with the government, which skews tax policy in their favor, they still spend hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars on lobbying.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Corporate Media Want Us to Think Biden “Lost” to Progressives on Infrastructure

    President Joe Biden gestures as he delivers remarks on the debt ceiling from the State Dining Room of the White House on October 4, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In a scene eerily reminiscent of the Hindenburg disaster of 1937, a tight-knit group of progressive activist socialist Democrats splintered their party’s chances of saving their House majority in next year’s midterm elections, and all but doomed President Biden’s social agenda to defeat. House moderates, whose patience with their far-left colleagues has worn thin, lamented the big setback for the president while reminding reporters that Medicare and drug prescription price reforms are not in line with the priorities of the greatest health care system in the world…

    Ha, wait. Sorry, wrong meeting. For a minute there, I thought I was supposed to be writing for the corporate “news” media.

    “Splintered Dems,” howled The Washington Post’s headline last Friday, with The New York Times weighing in with “Big Setback for Biden.” Absent the facts, last week’s mainstream reporting would have left most with the impression that the Congressional Progressive Caucus had sacked the Capitol Building again, and President Biden was crouched in the Rose Garden rubbing gravel in his hair.

    The news site Politico appeared to go well out of its way to present a version of reality as sponsored by the pharmaceutical/medical industry. That same Friday, it ran a story headlined, “Democrats’ domestic ambitions slam into reality.” Sounds pretty grim, no? Dead center under the headline was a sponsor’s graphic for PhRMA, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The next day, Politico’s “Playbook” report, which as of October 3 was still visibly sponsored by the BlueCross BlueShield Association, was headlined, “The strangest thing I’ve ever seen.”

    Both reports, along with an avalanche of similar stories throughout the “mainstream” press, made it sound for all the world like the Congressional Progressive Caucus had singlehandedly destroyed the president’s entire legislative agenda out of wildly malicious bomb-throwing spite. The truth — which has been slowly revealing itself as it cuts through the fog laid down by lobbyists and the paid-for press — is that the Congressional Progressive Caucus was loyally defending Biden’s agenda against an onslaught of corporate-owned conservative Democrats, and it succeeded with his official, in-person blessing.

    Another Post article from Friday with a similarly wound-up headline — “The Biden agenda is in peril. Here’s the reason it might survive” — actually managed to get the story straight. Greg Sargent reports:

    In the through-the-looking-glass media coverage of the Democrats’ brutal slog to pass President Biden’s agenda, the story has often been that radicalized progressives are threatening to derail the whole thing, because they refuse to accept the “reality” that the final package must be in sync with what the conservative faction of Democrats says is “possible.”

    But this gets the story wrong. In fact, the progressives’ stand on Thursday makes successful passage of Biden’s agenda more likely, not less. To be clear, it’s very plausible the whole thing could still implode. But if so, that lefty stand won’t be why.

    By refusing to help pass the infrastructure bill, progressives helped secure more space for negotiations on the reconciliation framework. The reconciliation bill is the Biden and Democratic Party agenda: It’s made up of all the climate provisions, economic infrastructure and tax reforms designed to secure our decarbonized future and rebalance our political economy after decades of upward skew. The centrists are the ones who oppose passing this agenda.

    When the smoke cleared, the self-imposed artificial deadline for passing the infrastructure bill had been postponed until Halloween; even with a two-week congressional break between now and then, there should be enough time to cool tempers and negotiate a version of the Buy Back Better Act (BBB Act) that can survive the strange, cruel attentions of Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

    Manchin and Sinema emerged from this process looking damaged and foolish. Sinema in particular proved to all and sundry that there is no functional difference between her and a cardboard cutout of her when it comes to making deals; on Friday, when the rubber finally met the road during these negotiations, she was in Arizona for a personal matter followed by a fundraiser — the latter being a fact Saturday Night Live had a bit of sport with. Even to this hour, nobody knows what Sinema specifically wants from these negotiations. Perhaps she wants nothing at all; she already got $750,000 in campaign donations from pharmaceutical and medical interests. Perhaps she thinks asking for more is just greedy.

    As for Manchin, his long obstruction game came toppling down on his head when President Biden showed up on Capitol Hill and sided with the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the coupling of the infrastructure and budget bills. The man who, like his cohort Sinema, refused for many grinding weeks to say what he wanted suddenly announced his demand that the BBB Act price tag come down to $1.5 trillion. This will, of course, become a fight, but at least everyone finally knows what the fight is to be about.

    Perhaps more insidiously, Manchin is insisting that the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment remain within the legislation; the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has been entirely forthright about their intention to jettison the Hyde Act from the bills. Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal sounded a cautious note even as she laid down her marker. “Let’s just wait,” she told CNN, “this is a negotiation and we’ve got to continue to move this forward, but the Hyde Amendment is something that the majority of the country does not support.”

    Manchin still intends to cause trouble for the BBB Act, but his veneer as the immovable object has been cracked, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus knows it. “That’s not going to happen,” Jayapal said of Manchin’s $1.5 trillion ceiling. “That’s too small to get our priorities in. It’s going to be somewhere between $1.5 and $3.5, and I think the White House is working on that right now. Remember: What we want to deliver is child care, paid leave, climate change.”

    While yet another retreat on the vitally necessary money to be spent implementing the BBB Act is dispiriting, the fact remains that nobody knows what the final product will be. The fact that Biden and Pelosi came so conspicuously down on the side of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and that the caucus itself is wide open to negotiation on the final number, seems to indicate the expectation of negotiating down was part of the process from the beginning.

    “There’s been a lot of talk about needing to compromise, about the progressives’ violating the political taboo of making the good the enemy of the perfect, of preferring all of nothing to a lot of something,” writes Josh Marshall for Talking Points Memo. “But this has pretty clearly not been the case. Rep. Jayapal publicly and Biden and Pelosi less publicly have been asking Manchin to name his number. They’re practically begging to compromise down. What they’ve been resist[ing] is being dictated to or surrendering all their leverage and getting an unknown reconciliation bill in which they’d be beggars rather than negotiators.”

    After a little breather, they’ll all be back to it soon enough. The senator from West Virginia overplayed his hand, and while he still holds some strong cards, the Congressional Progressive Caucus holds the high ground with the Speaker and the president. I’ll bet it was awfully quiet at Manchin’s house this weekend. I’m sure it was even quieter at Sinema’s; she wasn’t even home. Meanwhile, Big Pharma and the medical industry lobbyists must be seething. All that money spent on spin, and all they did was gouge a hole in the lawn.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A New Deal for Eds and Meds

    Organizers now recognize that to remake higher education as a public good, they must fight and win at the national level.

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.

  • House Delays Bipartisan Infrastructure Vote as Progressives Hold the Line

    From left, Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Veronica Escobar speak to reporters after meeting with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on the infrastructure and reconciliation bills on September 30, 2021.

    The House Democratic leadership on Thursday was once again forced to delay a scheduled vote on a bipartisan infrastructure bill as progressive lawmakers — acting as a coordinated bloc — held firm to their longstanding demand that Congress pass a reconciliation package first.

    Negotiations over the reconciliation bill, known as the Build Back Better Act, are expected to drag on Friday as conservative Democrats continue their efforts to slash the legislation’s price tag, which was initially set at $3.5 trillion over 10 years after progressive lawmakers compromised down from roughly $6 trillion.

    Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), an author of the bipartisan infrastructure package and one of the reconciliation bill’s principal obstacles, is demanding that at least $2 trillion be lopped off the latter’s top-line spending level — a move that would likely force major cuts to proposed investments in green energy, child care, housing, and more.

    “It would mean decimating vital, important programs for working families,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee and the architect of the $3.5 trillion plan, warned Thursday. “Obviously we could not do for the children what has to be done, we cannot do for seniors what has to be done. We would not be able to do paid family and medical leave.”

    “The planet is at stake,” Sanders added. “We got four or five years before there is irreparable harm, and clearly $1.5 trillion would make it absolutely impossible for us to do what has to be done.”

    Since June, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) have made clear that they would not vote for the Senate-passed bipartisan bill — a $550 billion proposal focused on physical infrastructure — until both chambers of Congress approve a reconciliation package that includes their social spending priorities, a strategy that Sanders and nearly a dozen other senators have endorsed.

    Progressives say they have enough votes to kill the bipartisan bill if it hits the House floor — and Pelosi appears to know it.

    Contrary to the narrative spun by conservative Democrats and some corporate media outlets, progressives argue that they are the ones working to ensure the passage of President Joe Biden’s entire agenda as a small cadre of right-wing lawmakers attempt to tank a crucial component of it — the Build Back Better Act.

    “By allowing one bill to advance without the Build Back Better Act alongside it, we leave behind childcare, paid leave, healthcare, climate action, education, and a roadmap to citizenship,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the CPC, said late Thursday. “We’re not going to leave working people, families, and our communities behind.”

    “Four percent of all the Democrats in the House and the Senate are blocking the Build Back Better Act from passing,” she added in an appearance on MSNBC. “Ninety-six percent agree with us. The president agrees with us.”

    After both the New York Times and the Washington Post characterized the delayed vote as a major “setback” for Biden’s domestic policy agenda, Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) replied that progressives “are setting the Biden agenda back on track, not setting it back.”

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) decision to postpone the infrastructure vote until at least Friday came after Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) — a leading corporate-backed conservative in the House Democratic caucus — told the press that he was “1,000%” certain the bipartisan bill would pass Thursday night.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the CPC whip, responded: “In Congress, we don’t make predictions like this until we know we have the votes. Some of us get this, others bluff and fall on their face.”

    “Hopefully,” Omar added, “Rep. Josh Gottheimer and the other 4% of Democrats will not obstruct but negotiate and help us get the president’s agenda done for the people.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Progressives Stand United on Holding Democrats to Infrastructure Promises

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez talks with a reporter as she protests the expiration of the federal eviction moratorium on the House steps of the U.S. Capitol on August 3, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    The progressive activists in the stands at Wednesday night’s congressional baseball game held up a series of banners, one of which said “Dems Don’t Fuck This Up,” and another that read “Our Lives Are a Game: Pass $3.5T.” A third banner declared: “Reconciliation First / Hold the Line.”

    While the Democrats went on to lose the charity game to their Republican opponents, the messaging from the crowd mirrored the overnight blitz of messaging ahead of a still uncertain vote in the House tentatively scheduled for Thursday on a bipartisan infrastructure bill that has become a proxy war over the Democratic Party’s agenda — one in which a handful of corporate Democrats, including Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kirsten Sinema of Arizona, have teamed up with a number of industry-backed Democrats in the House, to block passage of sweeping social investments contained in the large Build Back Better Act, including expanding Medicare, universal pre-K, tuition-free community college, extension of a more robust childhood tax credit, and aggressive investments to tackle the climate crisis.

    At least some of the banner drops at the game were organized by a group called the People’s Watch, which says it has had “enough” of obstruction and delay and is calling on Democrats to pass the “full recovery agenda” promised by the Biden administration and on which so many Democrats ran in 2020.

    The message from members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by chair Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), has been consistent for months: that the larger reconciliation package must be passed by both the Senate and the House first before a smaller, and they say much weaker infrastructure bill, known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework (BIF), receives a vote on the floor.

    On Wednesday evening, just after Manchin released a statement saying that he is still unwilling to agree to the top-line number and the specifics contained in the $3.5 reconciliation package, Congresswoman Jayapal warned that if the obstruction by Manchin and Sinema persists, “this whole thing is not going to happen.”

    “I can tell you that his statement has just probably created at least a bunch more votes on the House floor against a bipartisan bill,” Jayapal said.

    Later, appearing on MSNBC’s “All in With Chris Hayes,” Jayapal reiterated that message and said her fellow progressives in the House remained prepared to stand against the bipartisan bill until a deal over reconciliation is reached.

    “We are going to make sure we deliver the entirety of the president’s agenda,” she said, “because guess what, 96% of Democrats in the House and the Senate agree that that’s the right thing to do. The president agrees. And 70% of the American people agree and we need to deliver that transformative [plan].”

    As many political observers and operatives have noted in recent days — and not all of them strict progressives — Democrats could pay a huge price in the 2022 midterms if they fail to deliver on their agenda. And as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, argued in an op-ed published Wednesday, the stakes for the American people are too high to let a small handful of Democrats beholden to powerful industries stand in the way of the people-centered agenda that President Joe Biden and other Democrats have put forward.

    “This reconciliation bill is being opposed by every Republican in Congress as well as the drug companies, the insurance companies, the fossil fuel industry, and the billionaire class,” wrote Sanders. “They want to maintain the status quo in which the very rich get richer while ordinary Americans continue to struggle to make ends meet. Well, I disagree.”

    Sanders said he believes that “now is the time, finally, for Congress to stand up for working families and have the courage to take on the big money interests and wealthy campaign contributors who have so much power over the economic and political life of our country.”

    On Wednesday night, speaking to CNN, Sanders said his prediction was that the BIF would not succeed if brought to the floor on Thursday:

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), a prominent member of the so-called Squad and CPC member, also took to MSNBC on Wednesday evening and explained to Rachel Maddow that she and her colleagues have been consistent for months about their position and what the agreement has been. She also explained in detail why it’s vital — as the protesters at the congressional baseball game and elsewhere continue to demand that Democrats “hold the line” by making sure the bills pass together — because otherwise the powerful K Street lobbyists opposed to the social investments and higher taxes on corporations and the very rich will have a much easier time killing that plan.

    While Ocasio-Cortez said she was optimistic about the possibility of an ultimately positive outcome, she vowed that progressives are ready to stand firm.

    “We’re not going to leave behind women, communities suffering from climate change,” she said. “We are not going to leave behind immigrants. We`re not going to leave behind all of these groups that actually were the ones who came out and delivered for us. Because the problem in American democracy today is that people have lost faith in us, in government, that we actually will fight for working people and not just what’s easy but actually fight to give transformative change and opportunity to people across this country.”

    “And so,” she concluded, “that’s what we’re going to do and we believe that it actually will force people back to negotiating table and make sure that we deliver both pieces.”

    “Passing the Build Back Better Act will require standing up to powerful special interests,” the CPC tweeted on Wednesday. “That’s why corporate lobbyists, Big Pharma, and Wall Street executives have declared all-out war to stop the bill. We’re not backing down.”

    With progressives standing united and firm, and no clear movement yet from Manchin or Sinema, it remained unclear early Thursday whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would follow through with the scheduled vote or postpone it pending further negotiations.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Democratic Congresswomen Testify About Their Personal Abortion Stories

    Rep. Cori Bush talks to members of the press after a House Democrats closed-door meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 27, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    Reproductive rights advocates on Thursday expressed gratitude to three Democratic congresswomen ahead of their testimonies at a House Oversight Committee hearing on protecting abortion access, as Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) planned to share their own personal stories of obtaining abortion care.

    “Thank you for your vulnerability to advance justice,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) on social media to her colleagues ahead of the hearing.

    The three lawmakers are testifying at the committee’s hearing on “Examining the Urgent Need to Protect and Expand Abortion Rights and Access” beginning at 10:00am.

    Watch the hearing below:

    On Wednesday evening, Bush, Jayapal, and Lee also shared their personal stories in an interview with MSNBC correspondent Ali Vitali.

    “When I found out that I was pregnant it was very difficult because I still didn’t understand what was happening,” said Bush, who became pregnant as the result of being raped at the age of 17. “I just knew I wasn’t ready for a child.”

    “I am not ashamed,” Bush said on Twitter Wednesday.

    Jayapal shared that she had an abortion after getting pregnant following her first “incredibly difficult pregnancy,” after which she suffered severe postpartum depression.

    “I just realized that there was no way I could have another baby at that time and that I could not go through what I had gone through,” said the congresswoman.

    The hearing comes days after the House passed the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would ensure access to legal abortion care in every state, and is being held amid increasingly extreme attacks on reproductive rights in Republican-led states. In December, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a Mississippi case which directly challenges Roe vs. Wade.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.