Washington: US President Joe Biden on Monday (local time) said that he plans to run for president in 2024 but was not prepared to announce it yet.
In an interview with NBC’s “Today” show before the White House Easter Egg Roll, Biden said, “I plan on running … but we’re not prepared to announce it yet.”
Biden is the oldest US president in history. If he wins re-election, he would be 86 at the end of his second term.
Biden has said he intends to be the Democratic candidate in 2024 but has not made a formal announcement. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris said they will run together, reported NBC News.
Biden, 80, has consistently stated his plans to run for re-election. “I’m going to do it again,” Biden said last year as he posed for a photograph in the Roosevelt Room with Sharpton.
Top White House advisers are set to make final decisions on launching Biden’s re-election campaign, NBC News reported, citing several unidentified sources.
“The decision part is over, but he resents the pressure to have to announce what he’s already decided,” one source familiar with the matter told NBC.
Several considerations in the decision-making process include that no major Democratic challenger has emerged; that former President Donald Trump, who is running for the GOP nomination, has been indicted and is consuming the political spotlight; and that there’s a major clash coming with congressional Republicans over spending.
Last week, the former president pleaded not guilty in a Manhattan court to falsifying business records.
There are currently two announced candidates for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination – best-selling self-help author Marianne Williamson and anti-vaccine activist Robert Kennedy Jr.
No prominent Democratic officeholders appear to be considering a challenge to the incumbent, however.
Despite lacklustre approval ratings, Democratic power brokers have indicated that they are all in for Biden’s re-election bid even before he has officially declared his intention to seek it, reported NBC News.
Biden’s remarks come as he broke with progressives on some hot-button issues ahead of the expected launch of his re-election campaign, including on crime, immigration policy and the environment.
However, Democrats from across the party, from progressives and moderates to leadership and rank-and-file members — have said they plan to stick with Biden heading into 2024.
In a Statement of Administration Policy, the Biden administration said that an abrupt end to the emergency declarations would “create wide-ranging chaos and uncertainty throughout the health care system.”
Despite this, Biden told Senate Majority Chuck Schumer last month that he did not plan to veto it — marking the second time in recent weeks that the president has signaled opposition to a Republican-sponsored bill, only to later decline to veto it. Last month, Biden told the Senate that he would not veto a GOP-back bill that would repeal changes to the D.C. criminal code, a move that came as a surprise to Democrats.
Ending the national emergency will end the use of some waivers for federal health programs meant to help health care providers during the height of the pandemic.
The law Biden signed Monday did not affect the public health emergency, which is still set to expire in May — along with the Trump-era Title 42 border policy. In the Statement of Administration Policy objecting to the GOP bills seeking to end the pandemic emergencies, the White House warned that an abrupt end to the public health emergency and Title 42 would prove particularly problematic, and could “allow thousands of migrants per day into the country immediately without the necessary policies in place.”
[ad_2]
#Biden #signs #bill #Covid19 #national #emergency
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Also on Monday, DOJ and a drug company that makes mifepristone asked a federal appeals court to freeze the ruling of the Texas-based judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk. He has put his ruling on hold until this Friday, but the government and the drug company want the appeals court to keep it on hold while they pursue their appeals.
The legal turmoil caused by the rival decisions may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion 10 months ago.
Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald Trump, acted in a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion medical groups that claimed the FDA broke the law when it approved mifepristone for abortion in 2000 and recently expanded access to the drug.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling appears to be the first time that a court has invalidated an FDA drug approval. If the ruling takes effect, selling the drug would become a criminal offense nationwide.
The Justice Department immediately appealed Kacsmaryk’s ruling on Friday night, even as some prominent Democrats — and at least one Republican — called on the administration to ignore the ruling. The administration suggested that step is premature and signaled that it would work through the appeals process for now.
It did just that on Monday, following up its notice of appeal with a 49-page emergency motion asking the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to keep the ruling on hold.
“If allowed to take effect,” DOJ said in its motion, Kacsmaryk’s ruling “will irreparably harm patients, healthcare systems, and businesses.”
In a similar filing, drug maker Danco, which produces the brand-name version of mifepristone, called Kacsmaryk’s ruling “an extreme outlier” and contended he bent “every rule” to reach it. The company also said that Rice’s ruling indicates that Kacsmaryk’s decision went too far and should be blocked.
“The public is understandably confused by these two orders, issued the same day,” the company’s lawyers wrote. “Staying the nationwide injunction that alters the status quo would avoid creating an unnecessary judicial conflict.”
The 5th Circuit gave the anti-abortion groups who brought the lawsuit against the FDA until midnight Central Time on Tuesday to respond to the requests from the Justice Department and Danco to block Kacsmaryk’s order while the appeals are heard.
Rice, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, issued his ruling in a case brought against the FDA by blue-state attorneys general who want to further loosen the agency’s restrictions on how mifepristone can be dispensed. Rice ordered the FDA to maintain current access to the drug in 17 states and the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs in the case.
Technically, the two rulings may not be incompatible. Kacsmaryk’s ruling is framed as a “stay” of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — an order that would subject Danco and others to a risk of criminal liability but does not actually direct the FDA to do anything. So, it’s possible that the agency could comply with both by doing nothing at all.
But the rulings have created sufficient uncertainty that the Justice Department asked Rice on Monday to fast-track the government’s request for clarification about how the two rulings interact.
[ad_2]
#Dueling #abortion #pill #rulings #put #Biden #administration #legal #pickle
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“We’re looking forward to announcing a new State Department spokesperson soon but have no personnel announcements to make at this time,” department spokesperson Vedant Patel said in a statement.
Miller did not respond to a request Monday for comment.
Miller is currently a partner at the strategic advisory firm Vianovo, where he advises boards, executives and well-known individuals on “government investigations, congressional inquiries, high-stakes litigation, activist campaigns, and social and political issues,” according to his firm’s biography. He is also an MSNBC analyst.
Miller served as director of the office of public affairs at the Justice Department in the Obama administration and has also worked as communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.).
[ad_2]
#Biden #eyes #seasoned #Dem #operative #State #spokesperson
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Washington: US President Joe Biden has once agains teased a run for a second term but stopped short of announcing it.
“I plan on running,” Biden told an NBC news interview Monday, adding, “but we’re not prepared to announce it yet.”
Biden has said before that he intends to seek a second term but he would announce it only after consulting his family.
First Lady Jill Biden told CNN in February, “I’m all for it, of course.”
Though an official announcement has not been made yet, there are every indication that the US President will run for a second term, defying questions about his age, including by members of his own party.
Biden is 80 and is already the oldest president in US history, at the age of 78. If he wins, he will be 82 when he starts the second term in 2025.
Former President Donald Trump, the leading Republican challenger to Biden as of now is 76 and will be 78, if he wins and secures a second term. He lost his re-election in in 2020 to Biden and is running a third time, dogged by mounting legal troubles.
President Biden is currently at 42.6 per cent approval rating in FiveThirtyEight’s aggregate of polls, with 52.6 per cent disapproval rating. While the economy has recovered from the crippling effects of the Covid-9 epidemic and unemployment is low, inflations remains high and because of rising interest rates – raised by the Federal Reserve for curb prices – fears of recession are in the air, bolstered by the collapse of two regional banks in recent weeks.
In November, Biden told reporters his intention “is to run again,” making clear it was his plan regardless of the midterm election results. Then in February, first lady Jill Biden told The Associated Press there’s “pretty much” nothing left to do but make the announcement.
“How many times does he have to say it for you to believe it?” the first lady said.
Even with Biden’s repeated reassurances, the 80-year-old president’s hesitancy to give the all-clear has left the Democratic Party in a state of limbo, as other potential presidential aspirants and major donors quietly develop a Plan B while publicly supporting Biden.
But just as Biden has done, his inner circle continues to insist privately that he will run, with top advisers Anita Dunn, Jen O’Malley Dillon and Mike Donilon effectively overseeing the campaign-in-waiting. As POLITICO reported in late February, Biden’s advisers have also taken steps to staff a campaign and align with a top super PAC, Future Forward.
With Democrats’ better-than-expected midterms performance and no real primary challenge threat, there’s little urgency to announce. Waiting to give the official signoff also allows Biden to avoid having to report fundraising totals and other paperwork that comes along with a formal announcement.
On the Democratic side, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer, anti-vaccine activist and son of Robert F. Kennedy, filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission last week to run. Self-help author Marianne Williamson formally kicked off her campaign in March.
Republicans are also lining up. Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and ambassador to the United Nations, launched her campaign in February, while Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis are both widely expected to launch respective 2024 bids. But former President Donald Trump, who announced his run for the White House in November, is still seen as the leading GOP challenger, using his recent indictment to raise money.
With news surrounding Trump’s arraignment last week, the White House stuck to the no-comment script, leaning into the opportunity to contrast Biden’s “focus” on the American people with the noise around his predecessor.
[ad_2]
#Biden #Roker #plan #running #reelection
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Washington: Joe Biden’s administration has defended its decision to pull American troops out of Afghanistan and blamed former US President Donald Trump for the chaotic withdrawal from the war-torn country.
The White House on Thursday released a 12-page document on the conditions that led to US’ exit from Afghanistan in 2021 and sent related classified documents to various Congressional committees.
The report places much of the blame on the previous Trump administration, saying President Biden was “severely constrained” by former president Trump’s decisions.
The Trump administration had negotiated a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban that Biden pledged to honour. But Thursday’s report criticised the former Republican president for a lack of planning to carry out the deal.
According to the report, when Biden took office on January 20, 2021, “the Taliban were in the strongest military position that they had been in since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country.”
At the same time, the US had only 2,500 troops on the ground, the lowest since 2001, and President Biden was facing Trump’s near-term deadline to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by May 2021, or the Taliban would resume its attacks on US and allied troops, it said.
It said Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin testified on September 28, 2021, “The intelligence was clear that if we did not leave in accordance with that agreement, the Taliban would recommence attacks on our forces.”
John Kirby, White House National Security Coordinator for Strategic Communications, told reporters here that the Biden administration was “proud” of its withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“The president’s very proud of the manner in which the men and women of the military, the Foreign Service, and the intelligence community conducted this withdrawal,” he said.
“I’ve been around operations my entire life, and there’s not a single one that ever goes perfectly according to plan,” he said.
Kirby said Biden’s choice was stark, either to withdraw all US forces or resume fighting with the Taliban.
“He chose the former, but even in doing so, secured extra time to conduct that withdrawal, stretching it out to August. Despite having his options curtailed, President Biden led a deliberate, rigorous and inclusive decision-making process that was responsive to facts on the ground,” he said.
Noting that the administration focused keenly on the need for proper planning, he said Biden directed his top national security leaders to begin planning for a withdrawal even before he had made the final decision to leave Afghanistan.
He ordered troop reduction plans, plans to turn over bases and equipment to the Afghan government as the previous administration had negotiated, plans to draw down the diplomatic presence and plans to evacuate both American citizens and Afghan allies alike, Kirby said.
The White House official said the evacuation planning started in the spring of 2021 and the president ordered additional military forces pre-positioned in the region by mid-summer in case they were ever needed.
Throughout, President Biden insisted that his team plan for worst-case scenarios such as the fall of Kabul, even though the intelligence community’s assessment when he was making the decision in early 2021, was that Taliban advances would accelerate only after the withdrawal of US forces, Kirby said.
The president repeatedly requested assessments of the trajectory of the conflict from his military and his intelligence professionals, he said.
The long-awaited report also cites intelligence failure in not predicting rapid Taliban victory.
Responding to a question on inaccurate intelligence assessment, Kirby said no agency predicted a Taliban takeover in nine days.
“No agency predicted the rapid fleeing of President Ghani who had indicated to us his intent to remain in Afghanistan up until he departed on the 15th of August,” he said.
The internationally backed Afghan government collapsed and then-President Ashraf Ghani fled the country in August 2021 as the Taliban took over the capital, Kabul, amid the withdrawal of US forces.
During the evacuation, a suicide bombing by the Afghanistan branch of ISIS killed at least 175 people, including 13 US service members.
“No agency predicted that the more than 300,000 trained and equipped Afghan National Security and Defense Forces would fail to fight for the country, especially after 20 years of American support,” Kirby said.
The mission that was originally sent into Afghanistan was accomplished a long, long time ago, he said.
“Remember, they were ordered under President Bush to avenge the 9/11 attacks and to go specifically after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. And decimating and degrading al-Qaida’s capability in Afghanistan was a mission that we accomplished a long, long time ago,” he said.
“Over time, the president has talked about this, the mission in Afghanistan morphed into something it wasn’t intended to originally be,” Kirby said.
The Biden administration has faced mounting criticism, especially from Republicans, over its withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“All of us hear from constituents that they’re very anxious for results. And our task, part of our task, is explaining to people what this process is about, and what to expect,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), a member of House GOP leadership, said in a brief interview. “I think some people get anxious because they just want immediate results.”
Republicans have fired off scores of letters, issued subpoenas and initial reports and held a handful of hearings. But part of the problem is the lofty expectations they set coming in.
Long before GOP lawmakers settled their speakership fight, they promised voters they’d deploy the chamber’s oversight power against President Joe Biden on a host of issues. They vowed to find a smoking gun that links Biden to his family’s overseas business dealings. They even embraced comparisons of their investigative efforts to Congress’ storied 1970s Church Committee, which uncovered significant abuses by the intelligence community.
The pressure on Republicans stems chiefly from the gap between their voters’ hopes and Washington reality — for example, Johnson said some of his constituents want them making indictments and arrests, which Congress doesn’t have the power to do. But Republicans also acknowledge some of their problems are self-inflicted as they face growing pains readjusting to the majority.
One GOP aide, granted anonymity to speak frankly, described an internal perception that the politicized government subpanel run by Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) had gotten off to a “rocky start” after its initial hearing revealed little new information. That same hearing sparked public kvetching among outside groups and high-profile pundits, who questioned both the structure and the strategy of the panel.
“There’s always going to be people who want to go 110 miles an hour and get frustrated with the pace of how things work,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), a member of both the politicized government panel and the Oversight Committee. He noted many House Republicans are new to life in the majority.
Then there’s Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.). He’s in a perilous position for a leading Republican, facing skepticism from some Fox News figures who have publicly questioned if he’ll be able to back up his goals for a Hunter Biden probe, given that the president’s son has been under a separate federal investigation for roughly five years.
“I see people go on TV and comment on — ’we should be doing this or we should be doing that’ — but a lot of those people have … been involved in investigations in the past and I don’t think they ever got any information,” Comer said, noting that he’s only been officially wielding the gavel for two months.
Additionally, the Oversight chair has to step lightly around potential turf wars as he pursues a broad scope of investigations that risk elbowing into the jurisdiction of other committees. Comer shot down talk of internal conflict, particularly with the Energy and Commerce Committee’s health subpanel chief, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.). The two men share a home state and are close, Comer said; if they had an argument, “it wouldn’t be over baby formula.”
Republicans have also faced staffing issues. Reps. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) brought up concerns about personnel as part of a strategy meeting with Jordan earlier this year. And while the House Judiciary Committee now has more than 50 GOP staffers, and requested a budget bump, it’s still shaking off a public perception that a core group of Jordan confidants are running it.
Gaetz, asked about the meeting, said members left the regularly scheduled sitdown feeling like they were all on the same page. And Jordan spokesperson Russell Dye said in a statement that the subpanel had “hired a talented and aggressive team,” in addition to an existing Judiciary Committee roster that led former President Donald Trump’s defense during House impeachment inquiries.
Regardless, there are fresh signs that the GOP conference’s investigative focus is diverging.
Gaetz crossed wires with Comer after the Florida Republican tweeted that he and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), with the chair’s “blessing,” would conduct a transcribed interview with a woman who has accused Biden of sexual assault, an allegation the president denies. Comer countered that there had been a “miscommunication” and that Gaetz, who is not a member of the Oversight, hadn’t spoken with him before the tweet.
“We’re following the money, we’re following the bank records. … We’re not going to get distracted on anything else, any sideshows,” Comer said, adding that Gaetz “can do whatever he wants” in the Judiciary Committee or its politicized government subpanel.
Both Comer’s and Jordan’s committees have been highly productive, but only a slice of what they’ve done so far has gained traction beyond friendly GOP outlets. As of Monday, the Judiciary Committee has sent 148 letters, received nearly 114,000 documents, issued 11 subpoenas, conducted six transcribed interviews and scheduled nine interviews or depositions. They’ve also put out two reports and issued a brief to members on subpoena compliance, with Jordan signaling he intends to dole out information to the public as he gets it.
“[We’re] going as aggressive but thorough and consistent with the Constitution as we can,” Jordan said. He dismissed any Church Committee comparison, because the decades-old panel is linked to a foreign intelligence surveillance law that Republicans have “all kinds of concerns with.”
Comer released a report last month focused on Hunter Biden and other Biden family members’ receipt of more than $1 million from an associate who made a deal with a Chinese energy company — though Republicans didn’t draw a direct link to the president, which has been their stated goal.
The Treasury Department also has granted Comer’s panel access to so-called suspicious activity reports related to Hunter Biden and associates. But the committee has yet to release any new findings from those activity reports, which are records submitted by banks that don’t necessarily indicate wrongdoing.
“I get a lot of advice, but we’ve had a strategy and we’ve been very transparent about it. … I feel like in two short months we’ve made a significant amount of progress,” Comer said.
Comer waved off questions about when he would subpoena Hunter Biden, accusing Biden world and the media of having “just assumed” that was a step he would quickly take. And while he said he’s purposely conducted his investigation more privately, he said he released the report on the financial payments in part because “I was seeing criticism from the left and the right that we hadn’t issued any subpoenas — when we had, we just hadn’t talked about it.”
But those movements still haven’t hooked some of Comer and Jordan’s more centrist party colleagues.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said he gets asked about the investigations back home “primarily from Republican activists” but added that “I don’t pay much attention to it.” Another GOP lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly, shrugged off investigations as designed to “make you feel good” but “never yield anything.”
And while Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) characterized Comer’s work as “important,” he described a split among constituents: Some conservatives positively cite Comer’s frequent TV hits, but among another “tuned-in” group he outlined “a frustration that … when is anyone going to be held accountable?”
As for himself? Barr said his focus is “not on those things,” pointing to issues like bank solvency.
“We all have a role to play, and I’ve got enough on my plate right now,” he said.
[ad_2]
#House #GOPs #Biden #investigations #sputter #gate
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
But because of an arcane tracing system and serial understaffing and underfunding, it takes an average of eight days to fulfill a routine trace request. Under the quickest scenarios, it can take about 48 hours, but only if the center surges resources, such as after a mass shooting, said Neil Troppman, program manager at the tracing center.
A look around the facilities explains why. Workers sometimes pull from stacked boxes of records that line the hallways, spreading the papers on the floor before taking a closer look. Other staff members spend their days converting any digital records the facility might have into non-searchable PDFs.
Congressional Republicans want it that way. They view the agency having far extended its defining purpose — turned by Democrats into a de facto arm for gun control.
“The ATF has a history of trying to target law-abiding gun owners and gun stores — rather than criminals — in pursuit of an anti-Second Amendment agenda. That’s not the purpose of the bureau, and that kind of agenda won’t keep our communities safe,” said a spokesperson for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a statement to POLITICO.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), whose legislative push to modernize ATF lacks a GOP cosponsor, called the current limitations “deliberate roadblocks to the ATF being able to do its job efficiently.”
“But let me put it this way: Nothing in this bill is a further limitation on peoples’ abilities to purchase guns,” Van Hollen said in an interview.
The debate of the role and upkeep of the tracing center provides a vivid illustration of how the obstacles gun violence advocates face aren’t simply legislative but bureaucratic.
While much of the national conversation has focused on President Joe Biden’s renewed calls for an assault weapons ban after a mass shooting in Nashville last week, other pleas from the White House have also gone unnoticed. In particular, Democrats have been rebuffed in their legislative efforts to modernize a tracing center handcuffed by a 1986 law that prohibits the government from keeping “any system of registration” of firearms, firearms owners or sales. Their calls to increase funding for the ATF, the agency the White House sees as playing a vital role in combating the onslaught of gun violence, have similarly been rejected.
“The tracing center is stuck in the past,” said Edgar Domenech, a retired ATF senior official and a former sheriff of New York City. He called it “amazing” that the ATF could conduct routine gun traces within eight days.
“Granted, it’s slower than what it was when I came on the job in 1985, when it was seven days, but you didn’t have an enormous number of records 30-plus years later,” Domenech said. “But the sad part is, the methodology is the same as it was when I came on the job in 1985.”
The ATF has been tracing firearms used in crimes since it was established in 1972. But under a new Biden administration rule issued last year, its responsibilities have grown. Licensed firearms dealers are now required to collect and maintain sales records indefinitely instead of the previous 20-year minimum. If a business shuts down or the license ends, dealers are required to send records to the national tracing center for storage.
These records sometimes arrive damaged, while other documents, because they’re handwritten, are difficult to read. ATF employees are tasked with organizing and preparing these documents, using high-powered scanners to create digital screenshots. Other gun shops have already transitioned to digital recordkeeping, but the tracing center must convert these files to PDFs that are non-searchable, because of the 1986 law. The end result, often, is that ATF employees must scroll through hundreds of pages of digital screenshots to track down information.
A revision of that law would certainly help matters for the agency. So, too, would more money, officials say. Biden’s 2024 proposed budget calls for $1.9 billion in ATF funding, a 7.4 percent bump from the current fiscal year. About $47 million is reserved for the National Tracing Center, in line with last year’s funding, according to a White House official.
“For decades, Republicans in Congress have worked to undercut and underfund ATF. At a time when we are experiencing a national epidemic of gun violence, ATF needs to be adequately resourced and empowered to do its job effectively,” the official said.
Requests for crime gun tracing have grown over the years, Troppman said. In 2022, the facility received 623,654 of them, up from 548,186 in 2021 and 490,844 in 2020. Some of the increase could be attributed to a rise in shootings and other crime, but it’s also because the ATF has encouraged law enforcement agencies to trace every weapon they find, Troppman said.
Law enforcement agencies make their firearm trace requests through an online system called eTrace, which runs on technology from the 1990s. Average processing time for a routine trace request has improved over the past few years from upwards of 14 days to the current eight days, which Troppman credits to an increase in funding and resources in 2022 and 2023. The center has 65 ATF employees and 400 contractors to maintain their current response time.
The greatest bottleneck is in record prep, where workers sort through the stacks of papers and prepare them for digitization, said Edward Courtney, deputy chief at the tracing center. The facility currently has 18 months worth of document-prep work just sitting in boxes.
And until recently, 40 cargo shipping containers sat outside of the building, each filled up to 2,000 boxes of documents. These boxes were moved to a building down the road, and the plan is to have employees begin processing the deluge of documents from gun shops that have gone out of business at the new location in the next year or so.
“The crush and the volume of what we receive in paper format requires manual labor,” Courtney said. “We just don’t have any more space back there to add really more than the 40 or so people that are doing it at any moment in time.”
A consistent parade of congressional staffers have made the trek to West Virginia to see the process for themselves in the last few months, and there are talks of a visit by a congressional delegation, Troppman said. But so far, legislative efforts to modernize the tracing center don’t appear to have a path forward.
Last year’s bill to allow the tracing center to keep a searchable database of gun records was opposed by many Republicans who argued the measure would make it easy for the government to seize Americans’ weapons or lead to lawsuits against specific gun shops, said Thomas Chittum, who worked at the agency for 23 years before retiring last year as ATF’s associate deputy director. Their argument is that a digital database could expose information about law-abiding gun buyers.
The partisan divisions go well beyond a national registry. GOP lawmakers have criticized the White House’s use of the ATF to toughen firearms enforcement. Republicans had planned to hold a mark-up last week for a resolution to repeal another Biden administration rule that required gun owners to register pistols with stabilizing braces, but the hearing was rescheduled after an elementary school shooting in Nashville.
Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde, a gun shop owner and a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees ATF funding, has already signaled he doesn’t foresee a funding increase “in any way” for the agency. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) took it a step further, saying his hope was that Congress will “reduce funding” or “eliminate” the agency, which he called “woke.”
That won’t happen, certainly not with a Democratic Senate or Biden in the White House. But a reduction in funding would mean slower response times to trace requests, and more bandaids to fix problems in a facility not operating in the 21st century. The eTrace system is just one example, Courtney said. In 2023, the tracing center was only granted 50 percent of the funding needed to purchase and hire IT professionals to complete the system upgrade.
“So now we gotta go back to the well in Fiscal Year 2024 and ask again. And who knows what we’ll get,” Courtney said. “We’re not trying to fleece anybody out of extra dollars.”
[ad_2]
#hurdles #Biden #faces #making #progress #guns #W.Va
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )