May, 10 2024, 12:13pm EDT
CPC Chair Jayapal, Renters Caucus Chair Gomez Call on Administration to Advance Fair Housing for All
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (WA-07) and Congressional Renters Caucus Chair Jimmy Gomez (CA-34) are leading 26 of their colleagues in calling on the Administration to immediately release the final “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (AFFH) rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
“America is contending with a variety of housing issues – including surging rents, increasing homelessness, and roadblocks to the American dream of homeownership. It is more important than ever to provide environments for every community to have quality housing within affordable reach,” wrote the Members. “Thankfully, HUD’s proposed AFFH rule would aid local government in creating a true fair housing environment. By forming goals for addressing fair housing concerns, in conjunction with the public that they serve, they will be empowered to take significant steps towards accountability, transparency, and oversight.”
This proposed rule was published in February of 2023 and remains a critical tool to address the country’s history of discriminatory housing policies. Although the Fair Housing Act was passed with the goal of prohibiting direct discrimination by landlords and real estate companies, patterns of segregation still exist.
The proposed AFFH rule would serve to close gaps in the enforcement of the Fair Housing Act and ensure through Equity Plans that the law is being upheld to its full extent. These plans will help communities receiving housing funds, like local governments and housing non-profits, measure the impacts of housing discrimination and outline strategies to alleviate those issues. As working families contend with an affordability crisis, finalizing this rule would help to curb inequity, end homelessness, and create opportunity for historically disadvantaged communities.
The letter was signed by Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Becca Balint (VT-AL), Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Greg Casar (TX-35), Judy Chu (CA-28), Yvette D. Clarke (NY-09), Danny K. Dennis (IL-07), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Maxwell Frost (FL-10), Daniel S. Goldman (NY-10), Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Barbara Lee (CA-12), Summer L. Lee (PA-12), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Scott H. Peters (CA-50), Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09), Adam B. Schiff (CA-30), Melanie A. Stansbury (NM-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) and the full text can be read here.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) is made up of nearly 100 members standing up for progressive ideals in Washington and throughout the country. Since 1991, the CPC has advocated for progressive policies that prioritize working Americans over corporate interests, fight economic and social inequality, and advance civil liberties.
(202) 225-3106LATEST NEWS
GOP Farm Bill Decried as Pro-Corporate, Anti-Family 'Waste of Everyone's Time'
The head of MomsRising said that "it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
May 17, 2024
Echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.
While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."
"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."
Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."
"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.
"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP."
Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."
Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."
"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law."
The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."
As Cummings detailed:
The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.
Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.
The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.
The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."
In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.
"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."
"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."
"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."
In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."
"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Slam 'Malicious Crackdown' on Migrants and Civil Society in Tunisia
"The clampdown on migration-related work at the same time as the increasing arrest of government critics and journalists sends a chilling message," said one campaigner.
May 17, 2024
Human rights defenders on Friday decried what Amnesty International called "an unprecedented repressive clampdown" by Tunisia's increasingly authoritarian government on migrants, their civil society advocates, and journalists over the past two weeks.
Hundreds of Tunisian attorneys led a strike in the capital Tunis on Thursday to protest rising arrests of lawyers, one of whom, Mahdi Zagrouba, said he was tortured during interrogation—an allegation denied by Tunisian officials. Demonstrators chanted "No fear, no terror! Power belongs to the people!" as they marched on the Palace of Justice.
Sub-Saharan African migrants—recently described by Tunisian President Kais Saied as "hordes of illegal immigrants" who bring "violence, crime, and unacceptable practices" to Tunisia and threaten its "Arab and Islamic" character—have been particularly targeted, as have those who help them.
"On May 11, security officers stormed the Tunisian Bar Association's headquarters during a live television broadcast, arresting a media commentator and lawyer, Sonia Dahmani, for sarcastic comments made on May 7 questioning the claim that Black African migrants were seeking to settle in Tunisia," Human Rights Watch said Friday.
"Based on media reports, Dahmani's arrest and subsequent detention was based on Decree-Law 54 on cybercrime, which imposes heavy prison sentences for spreading 'fake news' and 'rumors' online and in the media, after she refused to respond to a summons for questioning," the group added.
Other recent arrestees include Saadia Mosbah, a Black Tunisian woman who heads the anti-racism group Mnemty (My Dream); and journalists Mourad Zeghidi and Borhen Bsaies
"The clampdown on migration-related work at the same time as the increasing arrest of government critics and journalists sends a chilling message that anyone who doesn't fall in line may end up in the authorities' crosshairs," Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement. "By targeting these civil society groups, Tunisian authorities jeopardize the vital support they provide migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers living in extremely vulnerable situations."
According to Amnesty International:
Tunisian authorities have since May 3 arrested, summoned, and investigated the heads, former staff, or members of at least 12 organizations over unclear accusations including "financial crimes" for providing aid to migrants, including a Tunisian organization that works in partnership with the [United Nations] Refugee Agency, UNHCR, on supporting asylum-seekers through the refugee status determination process in the country. They have also arrested at least two journalists and referred them to trial for their independent reporting and comments in the media.
In parallel, security forces have escalated their collective unlawful deportations of refugees and migrants, as well as multiple forced evictions and have arrested and convicted landlords for renting apartments to migrants without permits.
"Tunisia's authorities have stepped up their malicious crackdown against civil society organizations working on migrants and refugee rights using misleading claims about their work and harassing and prosecuting NGO workers, lawyers, and journalists," said Heba Morayef, Amnesty's regional director for Middle East and North Africa.
"A smear campaign online and in the media, supported by the Tunisian president himself, has put refugees and migrants in the country at risk," she continued. "It also undermines the work of civil society groups and sends a chilling message to all critical voices."
"Tunisia's authorities must immediately end this vicious campaign and halt all reprisals against NGO workers providing essential support, including shelter, to migrants and refugees," Morayef added. "The European Union should be urgently reviewing its cooperation agreements with Tunisia to ensure that it is not complicit in human rights violations against migrants and refugees nor in the clampdown on media, lawyers, migrants, and activists."
Last July, the E.U. and Tunisia signed a memorandum of understanding that included up to €1 billion ($1.09 billion) in funding for the North African nation. Around 10% of that aid is meant to be spent on stopping migrants from reaching Europe.
"The European Union should be urgently reviewing its cooperation agreements with Tunisia to ensure that it is not complicit in human rights violations."
Romdhane Ben Amor of the Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights toldAl Jazeera Friday that "the regime's machinery is operating very efficiently, meaning it devours anyone who has a critical perspective on the situation... lawyers, journalists, bloggers, citizens, or associations."
"So, of course, Kais Saied from now until the elections has a long list of individuals, associations, parties, and journalists whom he will gradually criminalize to always maintain the sympathy of his electoral base," Ben Amor added, referring to this fall's expected presidential contest.
Over the past three years, Saied—who was initially supported by both leftists and Islamists when elected on an anti-corruption platform in 2019—has dissolved Parliament and suspended most of Tunisia's 2014 Constitution, allowing him to rule by decree. He has consolidated power by pushing through a new constitution, eroding the judiciary's independence, repressing civil liberties, undermining workers' rights, weakening democratic institutions, and other methods.
"Tunisian authorities must urgently reverse this significant backsliding on human rights," Morayef asserted. "They must cease this judicial harassment and release all those detained solely for the exercise of their freedom of expression and freedom of association. People should have the freedom to express themselves without fear of reprisal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alito Family's Upside-Down Flag After Jan. 6 Sparks Call for Justice's Recusal
"This behavior is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice," said one critic.
May 17, 2024
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin was among those on Friday who called for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's recusal from cases related to the 2020 election after The New York Timesreported the justice flew an upside-down flag outside his home in the days leading up to President Joe Biden's inauguration.
The display of an inverted flag officially symbolizes "dire duress" according to the U.S. code, and has been used at various times by people across the political spectrum to signify distress over U.S. policy and disapproval of the government.
At the time Alito's family displayed the flag, just over a week after then-President Donald Trump urged his supporters to riot at the U.S. Capitol when lawmakers were certifying the election results, the "Stop the Steal" movement had embraced the symbol to show their belief that the election had been stolen for Biden—despite all evidence to the contrary.
Alito told the Times on Friday that he "had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag" and that "it was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
But Durbin (D-Ill.) said the display on January 17, 2021—and for several days before that—clearly created "the appearance of bias."
"Justice Alito should recuse himself immediately from cases related to the 2020 election and the January 6 insurrection, including the question of the former president's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump, which the Supreme Court is currently considering," said the senator.
The news of Alito's upside-down flag comes after numerous reports about ethical breaches by right-wing Supreme Court justices including Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas.
Both of the justices have accepted luxury travel and have had other financial transactions with right-wing operatives who have been involved in cases before the court, and Thomas has drawn condemnation for continuing to serve on a case regarding documents being turned over to the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack after it was revealed that his wife had supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
In the coming weeks, the court is set to rule on Trump's claim that he has immunity in his federal election interference case and in a separate case regarding whether January 6 defendants should be charged with obstructing an official proceeding.
Despite four ongoing criminal cases, Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November.
"The court is in an ethical crisis of its own making, and Justice Alito and the rest of the court should be doing everything in their power to regain public trust," said Durbin. "Supreme Court justices should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest."
The senator added that the latest reporting offers new proof that Congress must pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency (SCERT) Act, which would create an enforceable code of conduct for the high court.
Indivisible co-executive director Ezra Levin applauded Durbin's call and said the news about Alito's flag "just confirms what we already knew: that the Supreme Court is stacked with far-right, partisan justices intent on using the bench to institutionalize MAGA extremism."
"This behavior is disqualifying for a Supreme Court justice," said Levin. "Alito is not an impartial arbiter of the law, especially when Donald Trump is involved. His brazen actions underscore the urgent need for increased congressional oversight of the court as well as structural reforms to restore its legitimacy."
Levin also called on Durbin to use his committee leadership position to "rigorously investigate corruption on the court and lead efforts to expand the court to unrig the MAGA supermajority."
Devin Ombres, senior director for courts and legal policy at the Center for American Progress, said Alito's display of the flag was a "matter-of-fact admission of his partisan sympathy with Donald Trump's 'Stop the Steal' movement, which led to the violent insurrection on January 6."
"His pathetic excuse that his wife hung the flag as part of a political dispute with a neighbor is even more damning because he's admitting it was a partisan act," said Ombres. "It's unacceptable that Alito now sits in judgment of whether Trump's actions deserve the imprimatur of presidential immunity. Chief Justice John Roberts and the other justices must demand Alito's recusal from any case related to the January 6 insurrection. If Alito had any sense of propriety or humility, he would resign."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular