Tag: proposal
Chip Roy

House Republicans Suddenly Want To Make Ousting Speaker More Difficult

House Republicans released a proposal Wednesday for the rules governing the lower chamber of Congress to make it more difficult to oust a speaker—an effort to protect Mike Johnson, or whoever ultimately wins the gavel.

In the current Congress, any House member from either party could introduce a motion to vacate the chair, which would require the House to vote on a new speaker.

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) made this rule in 2023 as a concession to House Republicans in exchange for their votes for speaker after an embarrassing 15 rounds of voting.

Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, used this rule to oust McCarthy in October 2023. And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, tried to use it again in May 2024 to push out Johnson, but Democrats voted to keep him to avoid throwing the House into chaos for the second time in less than a year.

But Republicans’ new proposed rule, which the House will vote on when the 119th Congress is sworn in on Friday, would only allow members of the majority party to introduce motions to vacate the chair.

As the proposal states, “A resolution causing a vacancy in the Office of Speaker shall not be privileged except if it is offered by a member of the majority party and has accumulated eight cosponsors from the majority party at the time it is offered.’’

If adopted, this rule could insulate Johnson from being ousted if his own members revolt against him. Though, of course, Johnson has to be elected speaker first, which is not a sure thing.

Johnson can afford to lose just one Republican vote with his narrow majority and still become speaker. Already, Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, said he is not voting for Johnson, and Rep. Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, suggested that he isn’t either, putting Johnson’s speakership in potential danger.

It’s unclear whether anyone will challenge Johnson for the gavel, so the Massie-Roy effort would merely stop the House from having a speaker and paralyze the chamber until they relent. If no speaker is in place by Jan. 6, then Congress will not be able to certify Donald Trump’s victory.

Democrats, meanwhile, are irate about Republicans' proposed rule change.

Rep. Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, accused Republicans of "injecting partisan extremism into the rules."

"Their proposed changes would, for the first time in history, shield the Speaker from accountability to the entire chamber by making it so that only Republicans can move to vacate the chair," he wrote on X. "This makes it clear that they have no intention of working together to find common ground. Instead of electing a Speaker of the House, they decided to elect a Speaker of the Republican Conference—held hostage by their most extreme members."

Other Democrats said the rule proposal is an indication of Johnson’s weakness.

"I suppose this travesty is necessary in the Speaker's mind because his leadership is so tenuous,” Rep. Joe Morelle, Democrat of New York, told Axios. “There's no way for him to 'win’ the game unless the 'fix' is in. But this is deeply troubling."

The 119th Congress is already a mess, and it hasn't even started yet.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos.

Tom Homan

'They're Building Our Houses': Contractors Warn Against Trump's Mass Deportation

One key plank of former President Donald Trump's second-term agenda is mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. That policy proposal is now getting heavy criticism from construction industry leaders.

According to NBC News, homebuilders in particular are coming out against the ex-president's call to deport millions of immigrants. this includes builders in Republican-dominated states like Florida and Texas. Construction business leaders are worried that an already shallow labor pool could dry up even further if Trump followed through on his signature campaign initiative.

"They don’t think it’s going to happen,” Stan Marek, CEO of the Texas-based Marek Family of Companies, said of his colleagues in the construction industry. “You’d lose so many people that you couldn’t put a crew together to frame a house.”

“We need them. They’re building our houses — have been for 30 years,” Marek added. “Losing the workers would devastate our companies, our industry and our economy.”

Tampa, Florida homebuilder Brent Taylor, who runs a five-person construction business, said building is already a "very, very difficult industry," and is only "getting worse." He told NBC that Trump's proposed deportations would have a particularly adverse impact on both his company and his clients.

Taylor said that he often subcontracts labor, and that those who provide him with workers typically don't check workers' immigration status before sending them out to construction sites. He added that Trump's deportations would mean that he hypothetically "can only do 10 jobs a year instead of 20." He then noted: “Either I make half as much money or I up my prices. And who ultimately pays for that? The homeowner.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are roughly 370,000 open construction jobs, and that figure would likely climb even higher if migrants are rounded up and deported en masse. And according to the National Immigration Forum, roughly 30 percent of construction workers in the United States are immigrants. That share of non-native born Americans working in construction climbs up to 40 percent in larger states like California and Texas.

Trump has said he would deport as many as 20 million immigrants if he were elected to a second term. That figure is noticeably higher than the number of undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., which is currently estimated to be around 11 million. The former president has suggested he would revoke the Temporary Protected Status granted to migrants from unstable nations reeling from political violence and war like Afghanistan, Haiti, Honduras, Somalia, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, among others.

The logistics of rounding up, detaining and deporting that many people would be a massive endeavor. During the National Conservatism conference in July, Tom Homan — the former director of the Trump administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — hinted that ICE would kick its operations into high gear if Trump wins the November election.

"Trump comes back in January, I’ll be on his heels coming back, and I will run the biggest deportation force this country has ever seen,” Homan said. “They ain’t seen s— yet. Wait until 2025.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

China Blasts Proposal To Name D.C. Street For Dissident Liu Xiaobo

China Blasts Proposal To Name D.C. Street For Dissident Liu Xiaobo

By Stuart Leavenworth, McClatchy Foreign Staff

BEIJING — China reacted brusquely Wednesday to a vote in the U.S. Congress that approved renaming a street outside the Chinese embassy in Washington after China’s most famous political prisoner.

A Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, labeled as “purely a farce” the vote by the House Appropriations Committee to name the street for Liu Xiaobo, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2009 for “inciting subversion of state power.” Liu’s crime was gathering signatures for a human rights charter similar to one that helped end communist rule in the former Czechoslovakia.

Liu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, angering China’s Communist Party and raising his profile but doing little so far to expedite his release.

In an effort to increase pressure on China, the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday approved an amendment to a must-pass State Department spending bill that directs the secretary of state to rename the street outside the Chinese embassy “Liu Xiaobo Plaza.”

If the full House of Representatives passes the bill, as is expected, and the Senate and President Barack Obama also approve it, the official address of the Chinese embassy would become 1 Liu Xiaobo Plaza.

“Every piece of incoming mail to the embassy would bear the name of the imprisoned Nobel laureate,” said Rep. Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican who proposed the amendment and who’s one of China’s most vehement U.S. critics.

Wolf’s pressure play has been all but ignored by the media in China, where Liu’s name is “sensitive” and largely censored. Among Western experts on China, there’s been a debate on the wisdom of the congressional move, with some seeing it as the latest “tit for tat” that prevents China and United States from fully engaging on issues that divide them.

Supporters note that Congress previously has renamed streets in Washington to honor international defenders of human rights. In 1984, it honored Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov by renaming part of the street in front of the Soviet embassy.

Wolf originally sought his amendment to highlight the 25th anniversary of China’s crackdown on the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations, of which Liu was an enthusiastic participant.

“This modest effort would undoubtedly give hope to the Chinese people who continue to yearn for basic human rights and representative democracy, and would remind their oppressors that they are in fact on the wrong side of history,” Wolf and other members of the House said in support of the amendment.

On Twitter and other social media, commenters have wondered whether China would retaliate by naming a street outside the U.S. embassy in Beijing after a U.S. nemesis, such as former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. When asked whether China would respond in such a manner, Hua, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, smiled and dodged the question.

“What kind of measures do you think China should adopt?” she asked. She then issued a broadside against Liu, saying he’s “a criminal who has been sentenced according to law by Chinese judicial authority due to violation of Chinese law.”

Two hours before she spoke, U.S. Ambassador Max Baucus delivered his first substantive speech in China since he took the post earlier this year. Speaking to a Beijing luncheon of U.S. business organizations based in China, Baucus noted the strong economic ties between the countries and the commitment of Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping to a “new model” of relations.

Baucus, however, also mentioned two issues that divide the two countries: cyberspying and human rights.

“In the past year, China has arrested several moderate voices who had peacefully advocated for such basic things as good governance and the rights of ethnic minorities and the rule of law,” Baucus said.

While Baucus didn’t name names, it was likely he was referring to Pu Zhiqiang, who was arrested last month, and Xu Zhiyong, who was sentenced to four years in prison earlier this year. Both were detained on charges similar to those that sent Liu to prison.

Before he became the ambassador, Baucus was a member of Congress for 38 years, including 35 in the Senate. It’s unknown how he views the House’s attempt to rename the street for Liu. According to U.S. embassy staff, the ambassador, after lunching with business leaders, didn’t have time to take questions Wednesday from reporters.

AFP Photo/Mark Ralston

What Does Obama’s Speech Mean For The Supercommittee?

President Obama announced his $3 trillion deficit reduction proposal today, which has many on the left praising the president’s willingness to tax the wealthy and many on the right grumbling. But what does this mean for the 12 members of the “supercommittee” tasked with reducing the deficit?

Obama said in his speech today,

“I will not support — I will not support — any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.”

This creates a tricky situation for the six Republican members of the supercommittee: All of them have signed Republican Tax King Grover Norquist’s pledge to not raise taxes under any circumstances. So if they stick to their pledge, and Obama sticks to his new promise, the supercommittee’s plan will almost definitely be vetoed.

If the supercommittee misses its Thanksgiving deadline for making recommendations to trim the deficit by $1.2 trillion within the next 10 years, automatic spending cuts will be implemented starting in 2013.

Some commentators believe the president’s speech guarantees that the supercommittee’s recommendations will not be approved. Andy Kroll of Mother Jones wrote, “Obama’s veto threat essentially extinguishes even the slightest glimmer of hope that those dozen lawmakers would reach an agreement that could pass both chambers and win Obama’s support.”

After Obama’s speech, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “The good news is that the joint committee is taking this issue far more seriously than the White House.”

But with such a strong veto promise from the president, many wonder whether the supercommittee’s work — however “serious” it might be — will yield any results.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World