Also on today’s menu:
Senate Rejects Bill Banning Firearms At School
House Tables Increase To School Lunch Eligibility
As the House Rules Committee takes up the reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act this morning, which the hardline conservative wing of Republican House members have rejected up to this point, members will be hearing echoes of Massachusetts Republican Jim McGovern’s stinging rebuke. “This is the most ineffective, incompetent majority, I think, in American history. Full stop. It has been nearly an entire year, an entire year almost, since anything that we have done in the Rules Committee has gone to the president’s desk,” said McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
Instead of focusing on the reauthorization of legislation aimed at protecting the country by allowing the intelligence community to assess foreign threats, the House is more concerned with the operations of our own government agencies. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), the House Rules Committee’s new chair, is focusing on six bills designed to limit the secretary of energy’s power to establish new energy conservation standards — bills known as the “Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act,” the “Liberty in Laundry Act,” the “Clothes Dryers Reliability Act,” the “Refrigerator Freedom Act,” the “Affordable Air Conditioning Act,” and the “Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act.” It brings to mind the old adage about “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.
In order to get the House to pass FISA reauthorization, today’s vote will include several provisions to persuade a substantial number of hard-line conservatives to back the legislation. McGovern lashed out during the April 11 committee meeting, saying, “Republicans have tried and failed to pass their own rules seven times this Congress. Seven times. This House has been stuck at a standstill because of their infighting, and Republicans have done it seven times. One or two, three times, maybe, that’s just incompetence. But seven? Seven is a disaster. Seven is paralysis. It means weeks and weeks of sitting around doing nothing because Republicans can’t get their house in order and do their job.”
Discussion: Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has threatened to challenge House Speaker Mike Johnson if he brings a national security supplemental bill that includes aid to Ukraine to the floor of the House. Former president Donald Trump has been directing Republicans to oppose FISA reauthorization because an entirely separate FISA provision that is not up for renewal allowed intelligence agencies to look into his campaign aide, Carter Page, who was meeting with Russian officials. Conservative commentator Mona Charen wrote in The Bulwark that “Putin seems to have pulled off the most successful foreign influence operation in American history. If Trump were being blackmailed by Putin it’s hard to imagine how he would behave any differently. And though it started with Trump, it has not ended there. Putin now wields more power over the [Republicans] than anyone other than Trump…. [T]hey mouth Russian disinformation without shame. Putin must be pinching himself.”
Senate Rejects Bill Banning Firearms At School
The New Hampshire Senate has defeated Senate Bill 593, 9-14. The bill would have prohibited firearms on school grounds and buses, just as state law prohibits drugs on school grounds.
Prime sponsor Donovan Fenton (D-Keene) testified, “As a gun owner … and a parent, I value my Second Amendment rights while recognizing the need for responsible firearm regulation, especially in sensitive environments like schools. Senate Bill 593 strikes this balance effectively, respecting individual rights while prioritizing public safety.”
Republicans speaking against the bill pointed out the light penalty for bringing a gun to school — it would have been a misdemeanor — saying it would not deter anyone. They also cited the amount of money the state has provided to improve school safety and expand mental health treatment, which they argued is a more effective way to prevent school shootings.
Discussion: The Republicans are right in pointing out the light penalty, but they could have addressed that in an amendment to the bill. A misdemeanor penalty would be appropriate for non-threatening gun possession, but the bill already addresses that by carving out exceptions for “any person picking up or dropping off a student, provided the firearm remains in a motor vehicle, is not loaded, and is in either a locked container or a locked firearms rack; any person authorized in writing by the school board or duly authorized designee to possess a firearm; [and] any duly appointed law enforcement officer, properly trained school resource officer, or member of the armed services of the United States or National Guard when on duty.”
House Tables Increase To School Lunch Eligibility
When the New Hampshire House of Representatives cast a 191-191 vote on a motion to table House Bill 1212, Speaker Sherman Packard broke the tie. The bill would have raised the income limit for families to qualify for reduced-price school lunches.
The federal government reimburses schools for student lunches in families making up to 185 percent of the poverty level, and that is New Hampshire’s current income limit. The bill would have increased that limit to 350 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, the household income cap would increase from $57,720 to $109,200. That money would come out of the Education Trust Fund, which already provides about $1 billion a year in adequacy funds to school districts and the Education Freedom Accounts program.
Opponents of the bill said there is no evidence that children in higher-income families are being denied meals because of an inability to pay.
Discussion: Helping those who do not need the money places a burden on all taxpayers to cover the cost; yet, for Education Freedom Accounts, the House raised the income limit from 300 percent of the federal poverty level to 350 percent, with Republicans saying that people above the current cap could benefit from the program. That also could be said of school lunches. The logic of giving taxpayer money to people who already can afford private schools, but not providing the same benefit for school lunches, eludes me.