Mediaboss Marketing

Signage at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

WASHINGTON More than 140 current and former Democratic lawmakers filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on Monday to defend the country's leading consumer protection agency from challenges to its regulatory authority.

The brief led by Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Rep. Maxine Waters, of California relates to the case Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, which challenges the constitutionality of the agency and would undermine its funding and mandated authorities.

Brown chairs the Senate Banking Committee, while Waters is the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Upholding an appeals court decision that undermined the agency's funding mechanism "would place at risk a funding model that has been used since the early Republic, which now applies to the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and a host of other crucial federal programs," the lawmakers wrote.

Democratic House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of New York, along with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are among 144 current and former members of Congress who signed on to the brief.

Ten consumer advocacy organizations also filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court this month in support of the CFPB.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case in February, four months after a federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the CFPB's funding method was unconstitutional.

Congress decided to fund the CFPB, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the 2008 financial crisis, from the Federal Reserve out of "needed independence from unpredictable annual funding cycles," according to the brief.

Though the CFPB bypasses the annual appropriations process, its director is required to justify its budget to the House biannually, the lawmakers wrote, and Congress set an annual cap on the agency's budget at a "modest" level using a portion of Federal Reserve earnings.

In the October ruling, Judge Cory Wilson, a member of the three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, called the funding mechanism a "scheme" that is "unique across the myriad independent executive agencies across the federal government."

The Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, but a final decision could be delayed until June 2024 to hear other arguments in the case. In the brief, lawmakers concluded succinctly that "The judgment should be reversed."

See the original post here:
More than 140 Democrats defend CFPB in case before Supreme Court that threatens agency's existence - CNBC

The result, according to both environmental officials and carbon capture experts, is that many of the projects are likely to face either serious delays while waiting for safety assessments or worse be waved through with less than thorough scrutiny.

The EPA did not respond to questions about the safety of carbon storage and the size of the agencys program to monitor it.

Some climate activists whove long claimed that carbon capture is merely a way to perpetuate a fossil-fuel economy say the lack of regulatory apparatus is a sign of rushed decision-making. And they say it could put low-income residents and communities of color at risk, despite the Biden administrations pledges to address historical disparities in how environmental burdens are distributed.

For the most part leadership in both parties is aligned around trying to deploy as much [carbon capture] as possible, despite what the potential environmental justice impacts will be and despite considerable concerns about the technology and accountability, safety and security concerns, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the progressive consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Even government officials trying to get these projects to fruition are a little unsure about how this will play out given the lack of bodies behind the relevant desks.

Its tricky because this happened in a way that we werent super prepared for in a federal policy perspective, said Shuchi Talati, who until last April was chief of staff in the Energy Departments Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, which is handling billions of dollars for carbon capture grants and subsidies. I hesitate to call it a bottleneck. Its just going to take some time.

Funding a technology thats unproven at scale may be a massive gamble, though its one that only the U.S. government has the wherewithal to make, said Samantha Gross, who was director for international climate and clean energy at the Energy Departments Office of International Affairs during the Obama administration.

Theres some risk associated with the investment, but I think its a risk thats totally worth taking, said Gross, who now directs the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution. You want to take some risk thats the point. Its a technology that we need.

The money Congress approved is staggering. The bipartisan infrastructure law funded $6.5 billion for technology to capture carbon, pull it from the air or store it underground, another $3.5 billion for carbon capture demonstration projects and $2.1 billion to build pipelines to transport CO2. All that would go into an industry that research firm Allied Market Research estimates as having only $2.1 billion in global market capitalization.

Those are just the direct subsidies. Just as importantly, the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act strengthened a key tax credit that expanded carbon captures viability across many sectors, including cement and steel.

The technology is advertised as being able to scrub carbon dioxide and other pollutants from industrial processes before they can reach the atmosphere and trap the heat raising the Earths temperature.

Carbon capture may be the only real way to cut emissions at heavy industry sites, where switching to renewable energy is not yet an option. But while the underlying technology has been used for years, it has yet to take off at a huge scale. Only 13 commercial carbon capture sites are in operation in the U.S., said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group of oil and gas, tech, environmental and policy groups that back the technology.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats bet billions on carbon capture, but the government isn't ready - POLITICO

The Red Room of Doom. Thats the nickname one House Democrat gave the state Senate this past session. Others joked that the chamber with its red wallpaper, carpet and ceiling was where progressive bills went to die.

While Democrats held a near super majority at the Colorado legislature this session, closely divided committees in the state Senate frequently blocked or watered down some of the progressive priorities.

And that inspired one supporter of some of those policies to wonder why why didnt such big Democratic majorities translate into bigger margins on Senate committees in particular?

Alex Nelson, a public school teacher in Denver, is passionate about affordable housing. He visited the state capitol this spring to back several Democratic housing bills and testify in committee.

Nelson sees the impact that the lack of affordable housing has on schools, with students and families being priced out and having to move away, and also people choosing to have fewer children.

Housing costs, costs of living are so high that we see diminishing enrollment every single year, which is leading to closure, consolidation, all sorts of things like that.

The issue also affects teachers.

Friends in the teaching profession have a hard time accessing affordable housing, Nelson said. A couple of my friends have left the state because of housing costs.

Given how many people are struggling with housing, Nelson said he was surprised when measures like a proposal to allow local communities to enact rent control narrowly died in a Senate committee. It failed on a 4-3 vote.

I was thinking just about how many bills in the Colorado Senate came down to a single vote of either passage or failure, said Nelson. The situation led him to wonder, why those committees had only a single vote majority when the members on the floor held almost two thirds (of the seats)? Is that a decision made by leadership?

On seven out of the state Senates ten committees this year, Democrats only had a one-vote advantage. Those narrow margins made it possible for a single moderate member to side with Republicans to vote down a bill, or to demand significant changes in order to win passage.

Nelson was on the right track with his question about who decides the committee makeup; that power rests in the hands of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno. He appoints lawmakers to committees and decides on each panels size and political split.

The committee makeup is dictated by the political makeup of the chamber as a whole, he said. The rule says that the committee makeup has to be in rough proportion to the number of seats you occupy in the Senate chamber.

But because its only a rough proportion, Moreno still has leeway on each committee. Moreno acknowledges he could have given Democrats a bigger advantage on some committees, but said he doesnt have enough members to pad out all of them and that lawmakers individual expertise played a significant role in his choices.

The situation put a spotlight on several of the Senates more moderate members, like Democrat Dylan Roberts. Roberts, who was the key no vote on the rent control bill, was a swing vote on three different committees.

I reminded bill sponsors who were frustrated at my position that I didn't make the committee assignments, said Roberts. I didn't make the makeup of the committees. I was assigned to those committees, and I'm just doing my job. I got sent here by my district, not by a political party and not by a political philosophy.

Roberts lives in Avon and represents a mountain district where Democrats hold a less than seven point advantage, according to redistricting maps. He said he scrutinizes every piece of legislation.

The goal is collaboration and trying to make bills better. But there were several policies where I just couldn't get there.

Republican lawmakers said they were more than happy the Senate acted as a moderating force.

We haven't killed that many bills, said GOP Sen. Perry Will in the final weeks of session, But some of the bills that need to go away, it went away. I think it's great and I think it's much needed.

On the House side, where committees were much more steeply tilted in Democrats favor, Republicans said they were grateful that the Senate at times blocked policies they lacked the power to stop.

There were Democrats that destroyed bills that would not be good for Colorado. It's a teamwork effort here, said Republican Rep. Ron Weinberg who passed many bipartisan bills this session.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen said even though the GOP is at a disadvantage he thinks they are still punching above our weight to kill bad policy ideas. We are actually trying to hold the ideals of freedom for individuals to live the lives they want to live and the way they want to live them.

The narrow committee splits didnt just result in more moderate Senators voting down progressive bills; in many cases, they were able to get concessions and amendments in exchange for their support.

For progressives, the Senate results were a source of frustration throughout the session. They argue that Democrats surprising success last November the party picked up legislative seats in a year many analysts expected them to lose some show that they have a mandate to make big moves.

Voters are wanting something bigger and bolder. And we tried and that's not what's happening, said Democratic Representative Lorena Garcia who is in her first year at the Capitol. Garcia believes voters elected Democrats to do more this year on housing and criminal justice, in particular. But several key bills on those topics were defeated.

However, Moreno defended the committee makeup as a good reflection of the Senates general views. He notes that even when progressive bills did get to the Senate floor, they still didnt have the votes to pass.

For instance, a bill to make it harder for landlords to evict people on month to month leases lingered on the calendar and ultimately ran out of time, in part because it lacked the support to move forward. The Senate also gutted a bill that would have prevented prosecutions of 10 to 12-year-olds, except in homicide cases. And when a proposal to allow local communities to set up supervised sites for safe drug use came up in a Senate committee, three Democrats joined Republicans in voting it down.

All of the policies managed to pass the House before hitting roadblocks in the Senate.

And it wasn't always progressive policies that struggled in the Senate. The governor's Land Use bill, which was sponsored by Moreno, also died in that chamber. The Senate watered down the bill significantly, setting up a showdown with the House, which passed a more robust version. In the end, the bill was dropped in the final hours of session for lack of Senate votes.

Yes, we have a historic majority, said Moreno. It doesn't mean that we have a super majority of progressive members. It means that everyone votes their own conscience in their own district.

Senate defenders also note that some progressive bills didnt even gain traction in the House. A proposed statewide assault weapons ban failed in its first committee after three Democrats joined Republicans to defeat it. The House also handily rejected a measure to mandate more predictable schedules for restaurant and retail workers.

Progressive Democrats say they plan to try again with many of these ideas next session.

And as for Alex Nelson, the teacher who started us looking into this issue he said hes glad to learn more about how the legislature works, and is optimistic some of the housing proposals he supports will see more success down the road.

I tried to remind myself that these things take time and that the first go isn't always gonna be the one that gets you exactly what you want, he said,

Read this article:
Democrats may control the legislature, but the 'Red Room of Doom ... - Colorado Public Radio

FIRST ON FOX A leading conservative advocacy group that backs Republican causes is taking aim at House Democrats over the issue of crime and urging Congress to support a new measure that backs law enforcement.

The news ads bythe American Action Network (AAN), which were shared first with Fox News on Monday, spotlight Democrats who voted against a bill by the House Republican majority that was signed into law earlier this year by President Biden and aimed at nullifying a proposed overhaul by city officials of the District of Columbias criminal code.

And the digital ads, which AAN says its spending $100,000 to run online this week during National Police Week 2023, also urge lawmakers to support the Protect and Serve Act a pro-law enforcement piece of a larger package thats expected to receive a vote on the House floor this week.

"Carjackings, theft, violence. Crime is out of control. When Congress took action to stop it in our nations capital, even Biden signed on. But not liberals in Congress. They voted against cracking down on criminals," the moderator in the ad argues. "Now they have a chance to stand with Americas law enforcement. Critical legislation with tough new penalties for assaulting cops. Standing up to the defund the police movement. Tell liberals in Congress to side with law enforcement, not criminals."

HOUSE GOP CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE CHAIR SAYS DOZENS OF DEMOCRAT SEATS IN PLAY IN 2024

Besides two spots that will run nationally, AAN is targeting with ads six House Democrats who could face challenging re-elections next year. They are Reps. Chris Deluzio (Pennsylvania 17), Emilia Sykes (Ohio 13), Mary Peltola (Alaska at-large), Gabe Vasquez (New Mexico 2), and Abigail Spanberger (Virginia 7).

"Nearly 175 liberals in Congress sided with criminals over law enforcement by voting to lessen penalties for violent offenders in Washington," AAN President Dan Conston charged. "Now, Congress has a chance to instead stand up for our men and women in uniform and support new pragmatic legislation that protects law enforcement. Every Member of Congress should vote to back the blue."

FIRST ON FOX: HOUSE DEMOCRATS' RE-ELECTION COMMITTEE SHATTERS FUNDRAISING RECORD

A Fox News poll conducted earlier this year indicated that nearly nine in 10 Americans were extremely or very concerned about higher crime rates.

Fox News Poll on America's concerns. (Fox News Poll)

Longtime Republican attempts to portray Democrats as "soft on crime" had varying degrees of success in last Novembers midterm elections, as many Democrats in front-line House districts pushed back by spotlighting their support from law enforcement.

And national Democrats pushed back on GOP attacks over the issue by pointing out the no votes by House Republicans for a bill passed by the then-Democratic majority in the chamber and signed into law by Biden that increased funding for police.

"Despite their empty rhetoric, the truth is that House Republicans are the ones who have voted for major cuts to law enforcement and who have failed to condemn Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans calls to defund the FBI and DOJ," Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Courtney Rice argued. "That couldnt stand in clearer contrast to House Democrats who have a proven track record of advocating for public safety. In 2022, Democrats made their commitment to public safety clear on the campaign trail, and they will again in 2024."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Republicans controlled the House majorityfor eight years before the Democrats won back the chamber in the 2018 midterms. Two years later, in the 2020 elections, the GOP defied expectations and took a big bite out of Democrats majority.

The GOP captured the majority in the November 2022 elections, but hopes of a red wave never materialized and the party is holding onto a fragile 222-213 majority. That means Democrats need a net gain of just five seats to win back control of the chamber next year.

See the article here:
Top conservative advocacy group targets House Democrats over crime with new ad blitz - Fox News

The lifting of a pandemic-era restriction that turned away many migrants at the U.S. border has ignited fierce debates within the Democratic Party over immigration and border security, exposing raw intraparty divisions over an issue that Democrats often find difficult to navigate.

As U.S. officials brace for a rise in illegal crossings at the southern border after the expiration of the measure, known as Title 42, Democrats are grappling with competing political demands, seeking to address the intensification of a long-running humanitarian crisis and in some cases flexing their border security bona fides.

Mayors, members of Congress and other Democrats have demanded more federal support for their cities, districts and states. Some have sharply rebuked the Biden administrations decision to send troops to the border while applauding the end of the Trump-era border policy but worrying about what will replace it. And several moderate Democrats, by contrast, have criticized the White Houses decision to lift Title 42, sometimes pursuing efforts to extend it.

Taken together, the moment underscores the crosscurrents President Biden faces within his party as he slowly begins his re-election campaign and the challenges that await many Democrats in competitive races next year.

Its a tough issue because its a complex issue, said Representative Veronica Escobar, a Democrat from El Paso, a border city that declared a state of emergency before the lifting of Title 42.

For Republicans, it comes down to three words: Build the wall, Ms. Escobar said, faulting Republicans for torpedoing past immigration overhaul proposals. For Democrats, she acknowledged, the messaging is more challenging.

We want to talk about the multifaceted approach that it takes to address this, she said, adding that sometimes, we lose people in the process, because everybody is looking for a quick, easy sound bite.

Republicans have often used border security and the arrivals of immigrants to fire up their base, at times deploying racist conspiracy theories. But that strategy has had inconsistent results in recent general elections.

And the White House has blamed Republicans for opposing Mr. Bidens efforts to pass immigration legislation.

But an array of recent polls illustrate the political dangers for Democrats on immigration. A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60 percent of Americans disapproved of Mr. Bidens handling of immigration; a similar share of registered voters in a Fox News poll said the same. Its also an issue that alarmed Mr. Bidens lead pollster early in his presidency.

It starts with a safe and secure border and communicating what youre doing to ensure theres a safe and secure border, while at the same time providing a humanitarian and responsible way to become a United States citizen, said Dan Sena, a former executive director of the House Democratic campaign arm, the first Hispanic person to have held that position.

Both priorities, he said, from a messaging perspective and from an actual policy perspective, need to move together in unison.

In the days surrounding the lifting of Title 42, some Democrats have sought to strike that balance, arguing that there should be no conflict between supporting border security and demanding compassion for asylum seekers. Title 42, a public health rule, had allowed Border Patrol agents to turn away migrants rapidly, without providing most with the chance to seek asylum and in the immediate aftermath of the lifting of the order, the scenes of chaos some had worried about did not materialize.

But some moderate Democrats running in competitive races like Senator Jon Tester of Montana have argued against lifting Title 42 for now, as they seek to combat Republican attacks that Democrats are weak on border security.

We can have law and order at the border, and still be respectful of immigrants and their rights and treat them with respect and dignity, said Representative Henry Cuellar, a conservative Texas Democrat who offered a mixed assessment of how the Biden administration had handled the rollback.

Janet Napolitano, a homeland security secretary during the Obama administration, recalled the pressures the White House had faced from various factions of the Democratic Party when increased numbers of Central American children crossed the border in 2014.

Democrats have a much broader spectrum to cover, from those that are in what I would call the immigration advocacy community, to those who I would consider the pragmatic moderates and everything in between, Ms. Napolitano said.

Ms. Napolitano, who describes herself a pragmatist on immigration, said she had also confronted these tensions as attorney general and governor of Arizona.

There are those who believe sincerely and honestly that the United States should not deport people, Ms. Napolitano said. And there are those who believe thats not realistic nor does it fully respect the sovereignty of the United States.

Progressive Democrats have previously voiced frustration over Mr. Bidens reliance on Title 42, especially given his criticism during the 2020 campaign of former President Donald J. Trumps aggressive approach to migrants, which included separating families. And some suggest that moderates in their party are mistakenly ceding ground to Republicans on the issue.

We are allowing, in some cases, Republicans to win the conversation about immigration and asylum seekers, said Representative Delia Ramirez, a left-leaning Democrat from Chicago, whose mother crossed the border while pregnant with her.

She urged her party to embrace policies including directing more emergency funding to cities that are absorbing undocumented immigrants, making efforts to keep undocumented families together, and pursuing flexible and expedited work permits that could combat labor shortages.

Many of the people arriving at the border want to work, she stressed.

Latino voters have said to me over and over, neither party has actually delivered, she said. We have an opportunity to deliver.

Mr. Bidens plan to replace Title 42 with a so-called transit ban has also angered some of his fellow Democrats. This new rule would make migrants who fail to apply for protection in a nation on their way to the border ineligible for asylum within the United States.

The transit ban is a problem, said Representative Adriano Espaillat, Democrat of New York. The traditional asylum-seeking model should not be altered or mutilated with these new policies.

Some mayors of major liberal cities have expressed other concerns about managing the flow of migrants into their cities. Mayor Eric Adams of New York has been strikingly critical of the Biden administration.

And Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C., privately conveyed to the White House that she was much more concerned than she had let on about migrants being dropped off in the city last year, according to a former White House official. A representative for Ms. Bowser did not respond to a request for comment.

Its a prickly, prickly subject, Mr. Sena said.

Read the original:
Democrats Spar Over Immigration as Title 42 Lifts - The New York Times