US Politics

What’s in the climate bill that Joe Manchin supports – and what isn’t Though it faces obstacles before passing, package has been touted by jubilant Democrats as the largest climate bill ever in the US Joe Manchin, the centrist West Virginia senator and coal company owner who has repeatedly thwarted Joe Biden’s attempts to pass legislation to tackle the climate crisis, shocked Washington on Wednesday by saying he will support a bill aimed at cutting planet-heating emissions.The $369bn package has been touted by jubilant Democrats as the largest climate bill ever in the US, and even the world. It still faces obstacles before passing but the support of Manchin, a crucial swing vote in an evenly divided US Senate, appears to augur well for its chances. So what’s in the legislation?The basics of the billThe climate spending is part of a broader package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, that totals $739bn. The majority of this bill, however, is dedicated to confronting the climate crisis, with $369bn dedicated to the crisis over the next 10 years.It’s part of a reconciliation budget that can only be passed with all 50 Democratic votes in the Senate, due to unified Republican opposition, meaning Manchin’s acquiescence was critical.What does it include to address the climate emergency?The bulk of the bill allows for large tax credits for clean energy, such as solar and wind power, to allow such projects to go ahead on a grand scale. States and utilities will also get $30bn to help the transition to renewable, zero carbon electricity.A new $27bn “clean energy technology accelerator” will be created to help advance renewable technologies, $3bn will be given to the US postal service to electrify its fleet of trucks and there will be a new program to drive down leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas drilling operations.A further $20bn will be spent to promote climate-friendly agricultural practices and another $5bn to make American forests better prepared for the wildfires that increasingly threaten them due to global heating.What will people be able to access directly from this bill?The legislation includes a tax credit worth up to $7,500 for people who want to buy a new electric car, which has until now largely been the preserve of wealthier Americans.There is also a $9bn scheme, focused on low-income households, to electrify home appliances and make dwellings more energy efficient. Further tax credits, spread out over the next decade, will make it easier to buy heat pumps, rooftop solar and water heaters.Disadvantaged communities that suffer the brunt of fossil fuel pollution have also been recognized, with $60bn dedicated to environmental justice projects across the US.Are there any criticisms of the bill?The spending is a big reduction on the $550bn initially envisioned by Biden and Democratic leaders but sunk by Manchin’s opposition. The final bill amounts to far less, even over 10 years, than what the US spends annually on its military.The bill doesn’t include any mechanism to specifically phase out fossil fuels, the primary cause of the climate crisis, and, indeed, looks to lock in their use for decades to come due to a compromise struck with Manchin. Under the deal, regulations around drilling will be loosened and new leases will be offered in places such as the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Environmentalists have called this arrangement a “climate suicide pact”.How significant is this?Despite its imperfections, the bill is expected by both its authors and independent analysts to allow the US to cut its emissions by 40% by 2030, based on 2005 levels. This brings the US close to Biden’s goal of slashing emissions in half this decade, which scientists have said is imperative if the world is to avoid catastrophic climate change.What does it mean for the world?The US is the world’s largest economy, the world’s second largest carbon polluter and a superpower in diplomatic and military might. Its failure, thus far, to meaningfully act on the climate crisis has constrained global efforts and so this legislation, if passed, could prove to be an “historic turning point”, as Al Gore, the former US vice-president, put it.World governments meeting later this year at UN climate talks in Egypt could be emboldened to do more to cut their own emissions, while the direct impact of the US reductions could mean that heatwaves, floods and other disasters will be less severe than they would have been otherwise.TopicsClimate crisisJoe ManchinUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

Activists surprised and relieved at Manchin’s decision to back climate billBut the senator’s insistence on more fossil fuel drilling was called a ‘climate suicide pact’ by one expert Climate advocates reacted with surprise and delight to Joe Manchin’s decision to back a sweeping bill to combat the climate crisis, with analysts predicting the legislation will bring the US close to its target of slashing planet-heating emissions.Joe Manchin makes U-turn on tax and climate bill as US edges closer to recession – liveRead moreThe West Virginia senator, who has made millions from his ownership of a coal-trading company, had seemingly thwarted Joe Biden’s hopes of passing meaningful climate legislation – only to reveal on Wednesday his support for a $369bn package to support renewable energy and electric vehicle rollout.The move by the centrist Democrat shocked many of Manchin’s colleagues, who despaired after more than 18 months of seemingly fruitless negotiations with the lawmaker, a crucial vote in an evenly divided Senate.“Holy shit,” tweeted Tina Smith, a Democrat from Minnesota. “Stunned, but in a good way.”Should the bill pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by Biden, it will be the biggest and arguably first piece of climate legislation ever enacted by the US. The world’s largest historical carbon polluter has repeatedly failed to act on the climate crisis due to missed opportunities, staunch Republican opposition and the machinations of the fossil fuel lobby.The climate spending, part of a broader bill called the Inflation Reduction Act, “has the potential to be a historic turning point” said Al Gore, the former vice-president.“It represents the single largest investment in climate solutions and environmental justice in US history. Decades of tireless work by climate advocates across the country led to this moment.”The bulk of the bill includes hefty tax credits to unleash clean energy projects such as wind and solar as well as a rebate of up to $7,500 for Americans who want to buy new electric vehicles. There is $9bn to retrofit houses to make them more energy efficient, tax credits for heat pumps and rooftop solar and a $27bn “clean energy technology accelerator” to help deploy new renewable technology.A further $60bn would go towards environmental justice projects and there is a new program to reduce leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from oil and gas drilling.“This will be, by far, the biggest climate action in human history,” said Brian Schatz, a Democratic senator from Hawaii. “The planet is on fire. Emissions reductions are the main thing. This is enormous progress. Let’s get it done.”The authors of the bill predict it will cut US emissions by 40% by 2030, based on 2005 levels, a claim guardedly backed by independent experts. Scientists have said global emissions must be halved this decade then zeroed out by 2050 if the world is to avoid catastrophic heatwaves, droughts, floods and other climate impacts. Biden has set US emissions targets along these lines.The bill would “bring clean energy jobs to America and lower energy bills for American families”, tweeted Leah Stokes, a climate policy expert at the University of California, Santa Barbara.“It would get us 80% of the way to President Biden’s climate goal. This is a gamechanger.”However, Manchin has said the legislation “does not arbitrarily shut off our abundant fossil fuels” and has extracted guarantees of new offshore and onshore drilling, including a stipulation that millions more acres of public lands be opened for fossil fuel companies before new solar or wind energy projects can do the same.The West Virginia senator is a keen backer of a large proposed gas pipeline in his home state and has called for greater domestic oil production, citing fears over inflation.The requirement for more drilling leases amounts to a “climate suicide pact”, according to Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity.“The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country,” Hartl said, lamenting “a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels”.Should the bill pass, it will almost certainly do so without a single Republican vote, with the party still almost uniformly opposed to any significant action to address the climate crisis or impinge on the fossil fuel industry.Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, said he could not believe that Manchin “is agreeing to a massive tax increase in the name of climate change when our economy is in a recession. I hope that common sense will eventually win the day.”TopicsClimate crisisJoe ManchinUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Anger as Republicans block bill to help military veterans exposed to toxinsJon Stewart, who has lobbied for bipartisan bill to expand care for veterans, condemns ‘stab-vets-in-the-back senators’ The comedian Jon Stewart ripped into Republican senators on Wednesday, after they abruptly halted a bipartisan bill that would expand healthcare access for military veterans exposed to toxic burn pits.The former host of the Daily Show, who now hosts The Problem with Jon Stewart on Apple TV+, has lobbied for the bill.Most Americans do not want Biden or Trump in 2024, poll findsRead moreHe called those who switched their votes “stab-vets-in-the-back senators”.He added: “PS: fuck the Republican caucus and their empty promise to our veterans.”The measure, called the Honoring our Pact Act, would make it easier for veterans to access military care related to exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam and toxins from pits used to burn military waste in Iraq and Afghanistan.A version of the bill passed the Senate 84-14 earlier this year but was sent back to the House for some technical corrections. It easily passed there.But on Wednesday, 25 Republican senators who previously supported the measure declined to move it forward.John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told CNN Republicans did not back the measure because Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, was blocking votes on amendments Republicans wanted.Cornyn also said Republicans wanted to negotiate more, in order to cut out some of the mandatory spending contained in the bill.Stewart called that justification “bullshit”.Republicans blocked the veterans measure just after Schumer, from New York, and Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, announced they had reached a deal on a sweeping tax and climate measure.The Schumer-Manchin announcement reportedly caught Republicans off guard after another big measure, to support the US semiconductor industry, passed the chamber earlier in the day.In a speech on the Senate floor, Jon Tester, the Montana Democrat who chairs the Senate veteran’s affairs committee, said: “Putting this policy off does nobody any good whatsoever.”Tester also issued a strongly worded statement, lamenting an “eleventh-hour act of cowardice” and saying: “Republicans chose today to rob generations of toxic-exposed veterans of the healthcare and benefits they so desperately need – and make no mistake, more veterans will suffer and die as a result.”Stewart also criticized Patrick Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican, who urged his colleagues to halt the bill because of the way it allocated discretionary funds, Roll Call reported.Stewart wrote: “Congratulations Senator Toomey. You successfully used the Byzantine Senate rules to keep sick veterans suffering!!!! Kudos!“I’m sure you’ll celebrate by kicking a dog or punching a baby … or whatever terrible people do for fun!!!!!”TopicsRepublicansUS militaryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Chile is updating its constitution for the 21st century. The US should follow its leadDavid AdlerThe US constitution used to be considered a model for democracies around the world – but its antiquated institutions and absence of rights have guaranteed its declining influence “Every constitution,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1789 letter to James Madison, “naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” Two centuries after its expiration date, citizens of the United States are suffering the consequences of a constitution drafted by 55 men who owned hundreds of human slaves, thousands of acres in landed estates, and millions of dollars in inherited wealth. Fundamental rights denied, foundational institutions paralyzed and existential crises ignored: these are side-effects of a legal framework that has not been meaningfully amended in over a half-century.The US is not alone. Scores of constitutions around the world were written by dictators, colonizers and military occupiers to enshrine institutions that are undemocratic by design and unfit to cope with crises like a rapidly heating planet. In some cases, like the UK, the constitution was never actually written at all, setting the political system on a precarious foundation of norms and conventions that leaders like Boris Johnson have proven all too eager to discard. When a cross-party committee convened in 2013 to review the UK’s constitutional chaos, its recommendation was nothing short of radical: that the government should consider “preparations for a UK-wide constitutional convention”.But while both the US and the UK remain trapped in constitutional deadlock, the Republic of Chile has just concluded its own nationwide convention to replace the 1980 decree by the dictator Augusto Pinochet and his military government. The product of the convention is a visionary document that would not only update, expand and advance Chileans’ basic rights – to health, housing, abortion, decent work and a habitable planet – but also set a new standard for democratic renewal in the 21st century.Like that of the United States, the current Chilean constitution was written under extremely undemocratic conditions. Pinochet came to power in a bloody coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende, and set to work designing a constitution that would consolidate executive power, constrain democratic representation, and enshrine free market fundamentalism. Along with a clique of economists known as the “Chicago Boys” for their training at the University of Chicago, Pinochet set the country on a path of such extreme neoliberalization that Chile would become the only country in the world with a constitutionally privatized water system.The consequences of the Pinochet constitution were all too easy to predict – and will be too familiar to readers in the US from which its ideas were sourced. Inequality soared: Chile became the most unequal country in the OECD, with an income gap 65% higher than the OECD average; the combined wealth of its billionaires totals 25% of GDP. Debt exploded: Chile’s tuition fees rank among the highest in the world, trapping students in cycles of debt repayment that can last a lifetime. Precarity accelerated: the percentage of jobs on short-term contracts has grown to 30, while roughly half of all workers report being unable to save enough to fund their retirement. Even its famous system of privatized water crashed: millions of Santiago residents are regularly left without access to running water, as Chile moves into a period of severe water stress.In October 2019, millions of Chileans took to the streets to protest these intolerable conditions. Kicked off by a hike in public transportation fares by sitting president Sebastián Piñera, the protests quickly grew into a revolt against the country’s entire constitutional order – its neoliberal orthodoxy, its authoritarian governance, its absence of human rights protections that were on display in both Pinochet’s murderous regime and Piñera’s violent repression of the 2019 protests. “Constituyente o nada!” the protesters shouted: constituent assembly or nothing. One year later, Chileans turned out in record numbers to vote in a special plebiscite organized in the wake of the protest movement: 78% voted for a new constitution, and 79% for a convention of elected citizens to write it, rather than career politicians.At a time when democracies are ravaged by violent polarization, Chile’s convention has charted a path to peaceful renovation. Led by women, the convention brought together workers, Indigenous peoples and parties from across the political spectrum to draft a new constitution over the course of a year of careful deliberation. The result is a document that responds directly to the escalating crises of inequality, insecurity and a changing climate. The constitution establishes new universal public services for health, education, and clean water. It endows nature with rights and protects Chile’s glaciers, parks and big bodies of water from environmentally disastrous mining. And – four decades after Pinochet’s decree – it finally turns Chile into a full democracy, with gender parity in public institutions, self-determination for Indigenous peoples, collective bargaining for all workers and the right to vote for all Chileans over the age of 16.But the campaign to de-legitimate Chile’s constitution is already under way. Even before the convention had taken its seat, commentators at the Wall Street Journal had labeled it a “suicide mission”. Since then, a relentless “digital war” has been waged to discredit the new constitution by spreading lies and disinformation about its contents. One sitting Chilean senator falsely claimed that the constitution would change the country’s name, flag and national anthem, in a video that went viral across the country. Gender parity is mocked as “woke”. Worker rights are “divisive”. And Indigenous sovereignty is the path to an “Indigenous monarchy”. In its editorial instructing Chileans to vote against the new constitution, the Economist put the new text on a roll of toilet paper. The goal of the attacks is simple: to scare Chileans into a defense of an indefensible status quo.But Chileans are undeterred. After all, the Economist praised the “rapid success” of the Pinochet coup back in 1973, and most of the parties that presently call to reject the new constitution are the same ones that voted to keep Pinochet in power in the 1988 plebiscite that ended his rule. More than a month before the September vote, the coalition to support the new constitution is growing around the world, exciting everyone from feminists to evangelicals, US politicians to University of Chicago professors. “It’s kind of a miracle that it’s come this far,” said Tom Ginsburg, a University of Chicago professor. The “Apruebo” vote is still trailing in the polls, but enthusiasm for the plebiscite is on the rise. “This 4th of September, it will once again be the people who will have the last word on their destiny,” President Gabriel Boric said.But their destiny is ours, too. In the 20th century, the US constitution reigned as the model to be emulated by democracies around the world. No longer: its antiquated institutions and an absence of rights have guaranteed its declining influence. Now, Chile has shown the way to a new constitutional order – rich with rights, responsive to the needs of both people and planet – that can set an example for the world in the 21st century. Because, as even Thomas Jefferson recognized in 1789, “the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead”. From Chile back to the US, may a new movement for democratic renewal now come to life.
David Adler is a political economist and general coordinator of the Progressive International
This article was amended on 28 July 2022 to reflect that Gabriel Boric is not part of the Apruebo campaign; as president, he can only advocate for participation, not a single side
TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS constitution and civil libertiesChileAmericasLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

Centrists to launch Forward, new third US political partyDozens of former Democrats and Republicans to form new party in bid to appeal to voters unhappy with America’s two-party system Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials will announce a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America’s dysfunctional two-party system.Manchin announces deal with Democrats on major tax and climate billRead moreThe new party, called Forward, will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey.They hope the party will become a viable alternative to the Republican and Democratic parties that dominate US politics, founding members told Reuters.Party leaders will hold a series of events in two dozen cities this autumn to roll out its platform and attract support. They will host an official launch in Houston on 24 September and the party’s first national convention in a major US city next summer.The new party is being formed by a merger of three political groups that have emerged in recent years as a reaction to America’s increasingly polarized and gridlocked political system. The leaders cited a Gallup poll last year showing a record two-thirds of Americans believe a third party is needed.The merger involves the Renew America Movement, formed in 2021 by dozens of former officials in the Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, George W Bush and Donald Trump; the Forward party, founded by Yang, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 but left the party in 2021 and became an independent; and the Serve America Movement, a group of Democrats, Republicans and independents founded by former Republican congressman David Jolly.Two pillars of the new party’s platform are to “reinvigorate a fair, flourishing economy” and to “give Americans more choices in elections, more confidence in a government that works, and more say in our future”.The party, which is centrist, has no specific policies yet. It will say at its Thursday launch: “How will we solve the big issues facing America? Not Left. Not Right. Forward.”Historically, third parties have failed to thrive in America’s two-party system. Occasionally they can impact a presidential election. Analysts say the Green party’s Ralph Nader siphoned off enough votes from Al Gore in 2000 to help George W Bush win the White House.It is unclear how the new Forward party might affect either party’s electoral prospects in such a deeply polarized country. Political analysts are skeptical it can succeed.Forward aims to gain party registration and ballot access in 30 states by the end of 2023 and in all 50 states by late 2024, in time for the 2024 presidential and congressional elections.It aims to field candidates for local races, such as school boards and city councils, in state houses, the US Congress and all the way up to the presidency.In an interview, Yang said the party will start with a budget of about $5m. It has donors lined up and a grassroots membership between the three merged groups numbering in the hundreds of thousands.“We are starting in a very strong financial position. Financial support will not be a problem,” Yang said.Another person involved in the creation of Forward, Miles Taylor – a former Homeland Security official in the Trump administration – said the idea was to give voters “a viable, credible national third party”.Taylor acknowledged that third parties had failed in the past, but said: “The fundamentals have changed. When other third party movements have emerged in the past it’s largely been inside a system where the American people aren’t asking for an alternative. The difference here is we are seeing an historic number of Americans saying they want one.”Stu Rothenberg, a veteran non-partisan political analyst, said it was easy to talk about establishing a third party but almost impossible to do so.“The two major political parties start out with huge advantages, including 50 state parties built over decades,” he said.Rothenberg pointed out that third party presidential candidates like John Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 flamed out, failing to build a true third party that became a factor in national politics.TopicsUS politicsRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

Indiana investigates abortion doctor who treated 10-year-old rape victim State attorney general notifies Dr Caitlin Bernard and claims ‘she used a 10-year-old girl to push her political ideology’ The Indiana state attorney general has launched an investigation into the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim.According to Kathleen DeLaney, a lawyer acting for the doctor, Caitlin Bernard, a notice from the Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, regarding his investigation arrived on Tuesday.Daughter of doctor who gave 10-year-old an abortion faced kidnapping threatRead more“We are in the process of reviewing this information. It’s unclear to us what is the nature of the investigation and what authority he has to investigate Dr Bernard,” DeLaney told CNN. The Guardian has contacted DeLaney for additional comments.On 2 July, Bernard reported a 30 June medication abortion for her 10-year-old patient, who had been obliged to travel to the state from Ohio, after that state followed the US supreme court’s overturning a few days earlier of the federal right to an abortion and banned the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.According to reports reviewed by the Indianapolis Star and WXIN-TV of Indianapolis, Bernard’s reporting of her treatment to the health authorities came within the three-day requirement set by state law for individuals aged below 16 who undergo an abortion. The reports added that the patient who sought the abortion had become pregnant as the result of sexual abuse.A 27-year-old man has since been charged in Columbus, Ohio, in connection with abuse of the girl.Since the abortion, Bernard became the center of a political firestorm from rightwing media outlets and Republican politicians after Joe Biden expressed sympathy for the girl when he signed an executive order earlier this month aimed at safeguarding abortion access after the supreme court’s action in upending the historic 1973 abortion case Roe v Wade.According to DeLaney, Bernard is considering taking legal action against “those who have smeared my client”, including Rokita, who previously said that he would investigate whether she violated abortion reporting or child abuse notification laws.In a statement to the Guardian on Wednesday, Rokita said: “The baseless defamation claim and other accusations are really just attempts to distract, intimidate and obstruct my office’s monumental progress to save lives. It will take a lot more than that to intimidate us.“The doctor alone brought this case to the press. She used a 10-year-old girl – a child rape victim’s personal trauma – to push her political ideology. She was aided and abetted by a fake news media who conveniently misquoted my words to try to give abortionists and their readership numbers an extra boost.”Rokita added: “My heart breaks for this little girl.”According to Indiana University Health, where Bernard practices as an obstetrician-gynecologist, “IU Health conducted an investigation with the full cooperation of Dr Bernard and other IU Health team members. IU Health’s investigation found Dr Bernard in compliance with privacy laws.”Pregnancy termination forms that Bernard filed with the Indiana department of health, which Indy Star obtained and reviewed, showed that Bernard indicated the girl was six weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion and that Bernard did not know the age of the person who impregnated her.Bernard’s attorney said that she “took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician”.Meanwhile, a Wyoming judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked that state’s abortion ban on the day it took effect, siding with a firebombed women’s health clinic and others who argued the ban would violate the state constitution and harm healthcare workers and their patients.And lawmakers in West Virginia debated an abortion ban, drawing an at times raucous crowd of hundreds to the state capitol, where dozens spoke against the bill on the house floor.Wyoming’s court action puts it among several states including Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah where judges have temporarily blocked implementation of “trigger laws” while lawsuits play out.Such trigger laws are designed to automatically implement pre-prepared abortion ban laws after Roe was felled and the power over the right to abortion was returned from the federal government to the states.Later on Wednesday, a North Dakota judge blocked a trigger law there that was set to outlaw abortion in the state starting on Thursday.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsIndianaUS politicsAbortionRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Manchin announces deal with Democrats on major tax and climate billNews of agreement breaks deadlock two weeks after conservative Democrat had appeared to kill off Biden’s climate agenda Democrat Joe Manchin announced on Wednesday afternoon that he has reached a deal with the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, on a domestic policy bill that would pay down national debt, cut energy costs and lower the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs, while supporting a “realistic” climate policy.The development came almost two weeks after the West Virginia conservative senator had appeared essentially to kill off flagship climate action legislation when he came out against raising taxes on wealth Americans and refused to support more funding for climate action.Manchin has repeatedly thwarted his own party while making millions in the coal industry and his opposition to a massive reconciliation bill that included policies to boost green power generation and electric cars infuriated the White House as well as climate action advocates.The White House tells me they have a deal with Manchin. This is real. Build Back Manchin is back. Reconciliation has expanded. More details soon. https://t.co/IG9EeX7AjU— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) July 27, 2022
Biden and Democrats had hoped to include environmental measures in a $1tn version of the $2tn Build Back Better spending bill that Manchin killed last year in dramatic fashion, and negotiations had been under way for months before Manchin appeared ready to kill the deal, citing runaway inflation.But on Wednesday afternoon, Manchin suddenly announced a new agreement, with details and reactions from his colleagues still to emerge.More to come …TopicsJoe ManchinDemocratsUS CongressUS SenateUS politicsUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More

Gun executives tell Congress: don’t blame us for deadly shootingsCEOs face aggressive questioning from lawmakers at hearing about their companies’ responsibility for recent attacks Executives from large American gun companies appeared before a House committee on Wednesday, facing aggressive questioning from lawmakers about their organizations’ responsibility for recent devastating mass shootings in the US.The hearing marked the first time in nearly two decades that the CEOs of leading gun manufacturers testified before Congress and comes after a wave of deadly attacks including at a Fourth of July parade in Illinois, a school in Texas and the racist massacre of Black shoppers at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.The witnesses included Christopher Killoy, president and CEO of Sturm, Ruger & Company, and Marty Daniel, CEO of Daniel Defense. Mark Smith, president and CEO of Smith & Wesson Brands, had been invited to appear but refused to do so.“Mr Smith promised he would testify, but then he went back on his word, perhaps because he did not want to take responsibility for the death and destruction his company has caused,” said Carolyn Maloney, chairwoman of the House oversight committee.02:03Maloney announced that she would soon subpoena documents from Smith & Wesson’s CEO and other top executives to discover more about the gun industry’s business practices. According to a committee investigation, Smith & Wesson brought in more than $125m last year from the sale of assault weapons, which have been used in many mass shootings. In total, five gun manufacturers collected more than $1bn from the sale of assault rifles over the last decade, the investigation found.“The time for dodging accountability is over,” Maloney said.At the start of the hearing, the committee played a video of testimonials from families who had been affected by recent mass shootings, including the massacre at Robb elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and the white supremacist attack at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.Tracey Maciulewicz, who lost her fiance Andre Mackniel in the Buffalo shooting, tearfully pleaded with the gun companies to enact change in the face of so many families’ devastation.“What are you going to do to make sure that your products don’t get into the hands of a white supremacist mass shooter ever again, who will take a child’s father away?” Maciulewicz asked in the video.Rather than outlining corporate changes to prevent future tragedies like Buffalo, the gun company executives deflected responsibility for mass shootings, instead blaming individual bad actors and policy failures to prevent violent crime.“These acts are committed by murderers,” said Daniel, whose company sold the assault weapon used in the Uvalde shooting. “The murderers are responsible.”Killoy, the CEO of the largest manufacturer of rifles in the US, similarly argued it was wrong to blame the “inanimate object” of a firearm for deaths caused by gun violence.“We firmly believe that it is wrong to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to purchase a lawful firearm they desire because of the criminal acts of wicked people,” Killoy said. “A firearm, any firearm, can be used for good or for evil. The difference is in the intent of the individual possessing it, which we respectfully submit, should be the focus of any investigation into the root causes of criminal violence involving firearms.”Republicans on the committee echoed the executives’ argument, accusing Democrats of demonizing gun manufacturers while promoting “soft on crime” policies.“It’s absolutely disgusting to me and unthinkable, the height of irresponsibility and lack of accountability,” said Jody Hice, a Republican of Georgia. “My colleagues seem to forget that the American people have a right to own guns.”At one point, two committee members got into a heated exchange, as the Republican Clay Higgins accused Democrats of leaving average Americans more vulnerable to gun violence by pushing restrictions to firearm access.Higgins argued that law-abiding Americans would be more likely to get injured in a shooting if they were not armed as well, saying, “My colleagues in the Democratic party, when those gun fights happen, that blood will be on your hands.”The Democrat Gerry Connolly fiercely rejected that charge, telling Higgins, “We will not be threatened with violence and bloodshed because we want reasonable gun control.”The committee hearing came as House Democrats attempt to pass additional gun-control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons. A House committee advanced the assault weapons ban last week, but it remains unclear whether the full chamber will approve the proposal.Several House Democrats have indicated they do not support the ban, and the speaker, Nancy Pelosi, can afford to lose only four votes if every Republican opposes the bill. The House Democratic caucus chair, Hakeem Jeffries, expressed confidence that the ban would ultimately pass, although it does not appear the bill will come up for a vote this week.“I expect that, if the assault weapons ban hits the floor, that it will pass, and I personally and strongly support it,” Jeffries said Wednesday.Joe Biden has already signed one gun-control bill last month, in the wake of the tragedies in Uvalde and Buffalo. But many Democrats argued that the compromise bill, which expanded background checks for the youngest firearm buyers and provided more funding for mental health resources, did not go far enough to address gun violence.In addition to the assault weapons ban, House Democrats are considering a bill to strip gun manufacturers of civil liability protections. At the Wednesday hearing, Maloney indicated she would soon introduce more bills to regulate firearm manufacturers, saying lawmakers have a responsibility to the many families who have lost loved ones to gun violence.“Since it’s clear that the gun industry won’t protect Americans, Congress must act,” Maloney said in her closing statement. “This is a fight we must and will win.”TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressTexas school shootingBuffalo shootingnewsReuse this content More