US Congress

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Marjorie Taylor Greene criticized for not reading Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ bill

      by

      Republican firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene has drawn widespread criticism from Democratic colleagues for admitting that not only did she not read Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill before voting for it, but she would have voted against it had she read thoroughly.Greene revealed she was unaware of a provision in Trump’s “one big beautiful bill” (OBBB) that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence systems for a decade. The Georgia representative said she would have voted against the entire bill if she had known about the AI language buried on pages 278-279.“Full transparency, I did not know about this section on pages 278-279 of the OBBB that strips states of the right to make laws or regulate AI for 10 years,” Greene wrote on X. “I am adamantly OPPOSED to this and it is a violation of state rights and I would have voted NO if I had known this was in there.”Democratic lawmakers, who all voted against the bill, responded with incredulity of Greene’s admission.“You have one job. To. Read. The. Fucking. Bill,” Representative Eric Swalwell wrote in response.Representative Ted Lieu said he had read the AI provision beforehand and “that’s one reason I voted no on the GOP’s big, ugly bill”, he posted on X. “PRO TIP: It’s helpful to read stuff before voting on it.”Representative Mark Pocan was more forward: “Read the f**king bill instead of clapping for it like a performing monkey. You should have done your job while it was written. You didn’t. You own that vote.”The AI provision was added just two nights before the bill’s markup. It would prohibit state and local governments from pursuing “any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems” for 10 years, unless the purpose is to facilitate deployment of such systems.The language applies broadly to facial recognition systems, generative AI and automated decision-making tools used in hiring, housing and public benefits. Several states have already passed laws creating safeguards around such systems, which could become unenforceable if the bill passes the Senate.It also raises questions about the curious case of Republicans not reading sprawling legislation about provisions in the bill.Representative Mike Flood of Nebraska was booed by voters at a heated town hall last week when he admitted that a provision restricting federal judges’ ability to enforce contempt orders was “unknown” to him when he voted for the same bill. “I am not going to hide the truth: This provision was unknown to me when I voted for that bill,” Flood told the audience, prompting shouts from constituents who responded: “You voted for all of it.”But Greene and Flood aren’t the only unexpected sources to now disapprove of aspects of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill”: the world’s richest man and Trump ally Elon Musk called the legislation a “disgusting abomination” on X Tuesday afternoon.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,” Musk wrote, adding that it would “massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion”.Democrats have highlighted that the bill includes significant cuts to healthcare and social programs, with reductions to Medicaid affecting millions of Americans and cuts to food assistance programs.In response to Greene’s admission, representative Yvette Clarke wrote: “Reading is fundamental! Maybe if your colleagues weren’t so hellbent on jamming a bill down our throats in the dead of night, and bending the knee to Trump, you would’ve caught this, Sis!”Representative Delia Ramirez noted that Greene appeared to have missed other provisions affecting her constituents: “Oh, Marjorie! If you had read the bill, you would’ve also seen that 149,705 of your constituents could lose their Medicaid.”The House energy and commerce committee advanced the reconciliation package last Wednesday. Greene has called for the AI provision to be removed in the Senate, warning that “we have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years”. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Philadelphia paper warns Fetterman to take Senate job seriously – ‘or step away’

      by

      The Philadelphia Inquirer’s editorial board has issued a sharp rebuke of Pennsylvania senator John Fetterman in a new opinion piece, urging him to take his job “seriously” and writing that “it’s time for Fetterman to serve Pennsylvanians, or step away.”In a strongly worded piece published on Sunday, the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer, which endorsed Fetterman during his 2022 Senate campaign, said the first-term Democrat “has missed more votes than nearly every other senator in the past two years” and “regularly skips committee hearings, cancels meetings, avoids the daily caucus lunches with colleagues, and rarely goes on the Senate floor”.The editorial board also wrote that six former Fetterman staffers told an Inquirer reporter that Fetterman was frequently absent or spent hours alone in his office, avoiding colleagues and meetings.“Being an elected official comes with public scrutiny,” the board wrote. “If Fetterman can’t handle the attention or perform his job, then in the best interest of the country and the nearly 13 million residents of Pennsylvania he represents, he should step aside.”“Being an elected representative is a privilege, not an entitlement,” it added. “Being a US senator is a serious job that requires full-time engagement.”Fetterman responded to the piece and allegations on Monday during a Fox News debate with Republican senator David McCormick.“For me, it’s very clear, it’s just part of like this weird – this weird smear,” Fetterman said. “The more kinds of, left kind of media continues to have these kinds of an attack, and it’s just part of a smear and that’s just not … it’s just not accurate.”He continued: “I’ve always been there, and for me, if I miss some of those votes, I’ve made 90% of them, and we all know those votes that I’ve missed were on Monday. Those are travel days and I have three young kids and … those are throwaway procedural votes that … they were never determined if they were important. That’s a choice that I made.”Fetterman also reportedly claimed senators Bernie Sanders and Patty Murray had missed more votes than he has.“Why aren’t the left media yelling and demanding them and claiming they’re not doing their job?” Fetterman said.In response, a spokesperson for Murray told Politico that most of her missed votes occurred during a vote-a-rama when her husband was hospitalized.A spokesperson for Sanders did not immediately respond to request for comment from Politico, but the outlet pointed out that according to data from GovTrack.us, a government transparency site, Sanders has missed 836 of 6,226 rollcall votes since 1991, or about 13.4%. Murray has missed 290 of 11,106 rollcall votes since 1993, or roughly 2.6%.By comparison, Politico reported that Fetterman has missed 174 of 961 rollcall votes, approximately 18.1%, in his first term, according to GovTrack.us.The editorial on Sunday comes as last month, New York magazine published an article on Fetterman which quoted several former and current Fetterman staffers who expressed concerns about the Senator’s mental and physical health, and his behavior.In response, Fetterman dismissed the piece, calling it “a one-source story, with a couple anonymous sources” and labeling it a “hit piece from a very left publication”. More

    • 238 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s tax bill helps the rich, hurts the poor and adds trillions to the deficit | Katrina vanden Heuvel

      by

      The blush is off the rose, or, rather, the orange. The erstwhile “First Buddy” and born-again fiscal hawk Elon Musk recently said he was “disappointed” by Donald Trump’s spendthrift budget currently under debate in the US Senate. Squeaking through the House of Representatives thanks to the capitulation of several Republican deficit hardliners, this “big, beautiful bill” certainly increases the federal debt bigly – by nearly $4tn over the next decade.Equally disappointed are those who have been busy burnishing Trump’s populist veneer. Steve Bannon had repeatedly promised higher taxes for millionaires, but he has confessed he’s “very upset”. That’s because the bill would cut taxes by over $600bn for the top 1% of wage-earners, also known as millionaires. It amounts to the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history.Yet this double betrayal will do nothing to impede the sundry Maga apparatchiks’ breathless support for their dear leader. Musk has already tweeted his gratitude to the president for the opportunity to lead Doge (that is, slash funding for cancer research). So this bill has once again proven Republicans’ willingness to relinquish their convictions as long as they can keep their grasp on power. And for Trump, it has reaffirmed that his pledged golden age is really just a windfall for the uber-wealthy like him. Now there can be no mistaking that Republicans’ governing philosophy is neither conservatism nor populism but unabashed hypocrisy.Expecting the self-proclaimed King of Debt to balance the budget – or hoping workers would be protected by the billionaire whose personal motto is “You’re fired” – was always imaginative thinking at best. In his first term, Trump added $8tn to the national deficit. Even excluding Covid relief spending, that’s twice as much debt as Joe Biden racked up during his four years in the White House. Almost $2tn of that tab came from Trump’s vaunted tax cut, which delivered three times more wealth to the top 5% of wage earners than it did to the bottom 60%. Nor did its benefits trickle down, with incomes remaining flat for workers who earn less than $114,000.Trump’s disingenuousness on the deficit continues a hallowed Republican tradition. All four Republican presidents since 1980 have increased the federal debt. By combining reckless militarism with rampant corporatism, George W Bush managed to balloon it by 1,204%. When Bush’s treasury secretary Paul O’Neill expressed concern about that spending, Dick Cheney, the then-vice president, reportedly retorted: “Deficits don’t matter.”Except, of course, when a Democrat occupies the Oval Office. During his campaign for the US Senate in 2022, JD Vance derided Biden’s signature $1tn infrastructure package as a “huge mistake” that would waste money on “really crazy stuff”. Like improving almost 200,000 miles of roads and repairing over 11,000 bridges across the country.Apparently less crazy, but certainly more callous, are the vertiginous cuts to the social safety net proposed in Trump’s current budget bill. Its $1tn evisceration of Medicaid and Snap would leave 8 million Americans uninsured and potentially end food assistance for 11 million people, including 4 million children. When the Democratic Representative Ro Khanna introduced an amendment to maintain coverage for the 38 million kids who receive their healthcare through Medicaid, Republicans blocked it from even receiving a vote.But for all the budget’s austerity, it also provides $20bn in tax credits to establish a national school voucher program. And equally outrageous are its provisions that have nothing to do with the pecuniary, from easing regulations on gun silencers to hamstringing the power of courts to enforce injunctions.Perhaps most breathtaking of all, though, is how shamelessly the bill enriches the already mega-rich. In its first year, its tax breaks will grace Americans in the top 0.1% of the income bracket with an additional $400,000, while decreasing the earnings of people in the bottom 25% by $1,000. In other words, those who can least afford it are financing relief for those who least need it.When the 50% of working class Americans who broke for Trump in last year’s election realize they voted for a pay cut, they might begin to feel a bit disillusioned with the crypto trader-in-chief. They might even feel pulled to the authentically populist vision outlined by the progressives Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on their nationwide Fighting Oligarchy Tour.In the meantime, it is almost an inevitability that Republican senators will wring their hands before pressing the green button to vote “yea.” Josh Hawley has called the budget bill “morally wrong and politically suicidal”, criticism which Trump has previously mocked as “grandstanding”. The insult contains a typically Trumpian flash of psychological insight, because Hawley and his colleagues will no doubt do exactly what their counterparts in the House have already done – cave.Once Trump has scribbled his oversized signature onto the bill, his vision for the US will have become unmistakable. Try as they might, not even the spinmeisters at Fox News will be able to deny that he runs this country the way he ran his Atlantic City casinos, leading working Americans to financial ruin while he emerges all the richer for it.

      Katrina vanden Heuvel is editorial director and publisher of the Nation, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a contributor to the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vought says Trump may not need Congress’s approval to cut federal workforce

      by

      Russell Vought, the director of the office of management and budget (OMB), on Sunday cast doubt on the constitutional obligation of the White House to ask Congress to sign off on Donald Trump’s massive cuts to the federal workforce spearheaded by Elon Musk.Vought indicated the White House preferred to rely on “executive tools” for all but a “necessary” fraction of the cuts instead of submitting the whole package of jobs and agency slashing that took place via the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), to the congressional branch for its official approval.The White House budget director, in an interview with CNN on Sunday, also defended the widespread future cost-cutting proposed by the US president’s One Big Beautiful Bill act that was passed by the House last week, which covers budget proposals for the next fiscal year starting in October.But, as Dana Bash, CNN’s State of the Union host, pointed out, Doge cut “funding and programs that Congress already passed”. And while those cuts, cited by the departing Musk as being worth $175bn, are tiny compared with the trillion or more he forecast, Vought said OMB was only going to submit about $9.4bn to Congress this week for sign-off. That amount is understood to mostly cover the crushing of the USAID agency and cuts to public broadcasting, which have prompted outrage and lawsuits.Leaders of Congress from both parties have pressed for the Trump administration to send details of all the cuts for its approval. “Will you?” Bash asked Vought.“We might,” Vought said, adding that the rest of the Doge cuts may not need official congressional approval.As one of the architects of Project 2025, the rightwing initiative created to guide the second Trump administration, Vought is on a quest to dismantle the federal workforce and consolidate power for the US president, and to continue the Doge cuts.Vought said that one of the executive tools the administration has is the use of “impoundment”, which involves the White House withholding specific funds allocated by Congress. Since the 1970s, a law has limited the presidency from engaging in impoundment – typically requiring the executive branch to implement what Congress signed into law.Bash said: “I know you don’t believe that that is constitutional, so are you just doing this in order to get the supreme court to rule that unconstitutional?”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionVought said: “We are not in love with the law.” But he also said, in response to criticism from some on Capitol Hill: “We’re not breaking the law.”Meanwhile, on the Big Beautiful bill, the Congressional budget office (CBO) and many experts say it could swell the US deficit by $3.8tn, and business tycoon Musk said it “undermines the work the Doge team is doing”.Vought disagreed. “I love Elon, [but] this bill doesn’t increase the deficit or hurt the debt,” he said.Vought – and later on Sunday, the House speaker Mike Johnson on NBC – argued that critics’ calculations don’t fully account for extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts and slashing regulation.Vought also chipped in that Trump is “the architect, the visionary, the originator of his own agenda”, rather than the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for the administration, Project 2025, although he did not deny that the two have dovetailed. More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Trump does not suffer Congress when it comes to his prized tariffs

      by

      When it comes to cutting taxes or paying for mass deportations, Donald Trump is happy to work with Congress. But if the issue is his prized and disruptive tariff policy, the president has made clear that he has no time for their legislative wrangling.Trump underscored his sentiment towards Congress after a US trade court this week briefly put a stop to his controversial policy of placing levies on a wide range of countries, before a different court reversed that decision while legal proceedings continue.“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around DC for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly. If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power – the Presidency would never be the same!” the president wrote on Truth Social.The statement served to put Congress in its place, even though its Republican leaders have shown Trump great deference since taking office. The Senate has approved just about every official he has nominated, no matter how controversial, while the House of Representatives last week overcame substantial differences among the GOP conference to pass the One Big Beautiful bill containing Trump’s tax and spending priorities.If there’s one place where there is daylight to be found between Trump and his Republican allies, it’s his tariff polices. Even avowed supporters of the president have raised their eyebrows at his on-again, off-again imposition of levies on the countries from which US consumers buy their goods and factories source their inputs, and Republican leaders have gone to great lengths to thwart their attempts to do something about them.Which might be why Trump struck out on his own, and hoped the courts would back him up. So far they have not. The US court of international trade, which ruled to block Trump’s tariffs on Wednesday, was very clear it believed his policies “exceed any authority granted to the president”.The matter may ultimately come down to the views of the supreme court, where Trump appointed half of the six-justice conservative supermajority during his first term. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor, said the case is likely to present a test of how the supreme court views the “major questions doctrine” (MQD), which argues clear congressional authority is needed for agencies to carry out any regulations of national importance, in light of Trump’s tariffs moves.The doctrine was used to defang regulators last year when the court overturned the Chevron decision, limiting regulators’ powers and arguing they had overstepped their authority.The supreme court may not be minded to accept the major questions doctrine when it comes to the commander in chief, wrote Goldsmith in his newsletter, Executive Function. “It is an open question whether the MQD applies to congressional authorizations to the president. Every Supreme Court decision involving the MQD has involved agency action, and lower courts are split on whether the MQD applies to presidential authorizations,” he said.For Congress’s beleaguered Democrats, this week’s court intervention, however fleeting, provided grist for the case they’ve been trying to make to voters ever since Trump took office, which is that he is trying to act like the sort of monarch America was founded on rejecting.“This is why the Framers gave Congress constitutional power over trade and tariffs,” said Suzan DelBene, a Washington state House Democrat who has proposed one of many bills to block Trump’s tariffs. “The court spoke decisively in defense of our democracy and against a president attempting to be king.” More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tariffs derailed by law firm that received money from his richest backers

      by

      Donald Trump’s tariff policy was derailed by a libertarian public interest law firm that has received money from some of his richest backers.The Liberty Justice Center filed a lawsuit against the US president’s “reciprocal” tariffs on behalf of five small businesses, which it said were harmed by the policy.The center, based in Austin, Texas, describes itself as a libertarian non-profit litigation firm “that seeks to protect economic liberty, private property rights, free speech, and other fundamental rights”.Previous backers of the firm include billionaires Robert Mercer and Richard Uihlein, who were also financial backers of Trump’s presidential campaigns.Mercer, a hedge fund manager, was a key backer of Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica, pouring millions into both companies. He personally directed Cambridge Analytica to focus on the Leave campaign during the UK’s Brexit referendum in 2016 that led to the UK leaving the European Union.For its lawsuit against Trump’s tariffs, the Liberty Justice Center gathered five small businesses, including a wine company and a fish gear and apparel retailer, and argued that Trump overreached his executive authority and needed Congress’s approval to pass such broad tariffs.The other group who sued the Trump administration over its tariffs was a coalition of 12 Democratic state attorney generals who argued that Trump improperly used a trade law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), when enacting his tariffs.In such a polarized time in US history, it may feel odd to see a decision celebrated by liberal and conservatives. But Trump’s tariffs have proven controversial to members of both parties, particularly after Wall Street seemed to be put on edge by the president’s trade war.The US stock market dipped down at least 5% after Trump announced the harshest of his tariff policies. Recovery was quick after Trump paused many of his harshest tariffs until the end of the summer.Stocks started to rally on Thursday morning after the panel’s ruling. The judges said that the law Trump cited when enacting his tariffs, the IEEPA does not “delegate an unbounded tariff authority onto the president”. The decision is on a temporary hold after the Trump administration appealed.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionWhile the ruling does not impact specific tariffs on industries such as aluminum and steel, it prevents the White House from carrying out broad retaliatory tariffs and its 10% baseline “reciprocal” tariff. The White House is appealing the ruling, which means the case could go up to the US supreme court, should the high court decide to take on the case.Members of both groups who sued the Trump administration celebrated the ruling. Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center, said in a statement that it “affirms that the president must act within the bounds of the law, and it protects American businesses and consumers from the destabilizing effects of volatile, unilaterally imposed tariffs”. Oregon’s Democratic attorney general, Dan Rayfield, who helped the states’ lawsuit, said that it “reaffirms that our laws matter”.In a statement, Victor Schwartz, the founder of VOS Selections, a wine company that was represented by the Liberty Justice Center in the suit, said that the ruling is a “win” for his business.“This is a win for my small business along with small businesses across America – and the world for that matter,” he said. “We are aware of the appeal already filed and we firmly believe in our lawsuit and will see it all the way through the United States Supreme Court.” More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      A hidden measure in the Republican budget bill would crown Trump king | Robert Reich

      by

      If enacted, Donald Trump’s Big Ugly Bill as it emerged on Thursday from the House of Representatives would result in the largest redistribution of income and wealth in American history – from the poor and working class to the rich.Hidden within the bill is also a provision that would allow Trump to crown himself king.For months now, Trump has been trying to act like a king by ignoring court rulings against him.The supreme court has told Trump to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, a legal resident of the United States who even the Trump regime admits was erroneously sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador.Trump has done nothing.Lower federal courts have ordered him to stop deporting migrants without giving them a chance to know the charges against them and have the charges and evidence reviewed by a neutral judge or magistrate – the minimum of due process.Again, nothing.Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the federal district court for the District of Columbia, issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump regime from flying individuals to the prison in El Salvador without due process.Judge Boasberg has found that the Trump regime has willfully disregarded his order.Is there anything that the courts can do in response to Trump’s open defiance of judges and justices?They have only one power to make their orders stick. They can hold federal officials in contempt, and enforce such contempt citations by fining or jailing them.It’s a radical remedy, rarely used. But several federal judges are at their wits’ end.Boasberg said that if Trump’s legal team does not give the dozens of Venezuelan men sent to the Sallvadorian prison a chance to legally challenge their removal, he’ll begin contempt proceedings against the administration.In a separate case, the US district court judge Paula Xinis has demanded that the Trump administration explain why it is not complying with the supreme court order to “facilitate” the release of Ábrego García.Xinis has even questioned whether the administration intends to comply with the order at all, citing a statement from the. homeland security chief, Kristi Noem, that Ábrego García “will never be allowed to return to the United States”.According to Xinis, “That sounds to me like an admission. That’s about as clear as it can get.”So what’s the next step? Will the supreme court and lower courts hold the administration in contempt and enforce the contempt citations?Trump and his Republican stooges in Congress apparently anticipated this. Hidden inside their Big Ugly Bill is a provision intended to block the courts from using contempt to enforce its orders. It reads:skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued …”Translated: no federal court may enforce a contempt citation.The measure would make most existing injunctions – in antitrust cases, police reform cases, school desegregation cases and others – unenforceable.Its only purpose is to weaken the power of the federal courts.As Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law dean and distinguished professor of law, notes, this provision would eliminate any restraint on Trump.“Without the contempt power, judicial orders are meaningless and can be ignored. There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law …“This would be a stunning restriction on the power of the federal courts. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the contempt power is integral to the authority of the federal courts. Without the ability to enforce judicial orders, they are rendered mere advisory opinions which parties are free to disregard.”In other words, with this single measure, Trump will have crowned himself king.If it is enacted, no Congress and no court could stop him. Even if a future Congress were to try, it could not do so without the power of the courts to enforce their hearings, investigations, subpoenas and laws.The gross unfairness of Trump’s Big Ugly Bill is bad enough. It would worsen the nation’s already near-record inequalities of income and wealth.But the provision inside the bill that neuters the federal courts is even worse. It would remove the last remaining constraint on Trump, and thereby effectively end American democracy.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Charles Rangel, former Harlem congressman, dies aged 94

      by

      Former US congressman Charles Rangel of New York, an outspoken, gravel-voiced Harlem Democrat who spent nearly five decades on Capitol Hill and was a founding member of the Congressional Black caucus, died on Monday at the age of 94.His family confirmed the death in a statement provided by City College of New York spokesperson Michelle Stent. He died at a hospital in New York, Stent said.A veteran of the Korean war, Rangel defeated legendary Harlem politician Adam Clayton Powell in 1970 to start his congressional career. During the next 40-plus years, he became a legend himself – dean of the New York congressional delegation, and, in 2007, the first African American to chair the powerful House ways and means committee.He stepped down from that committee amid an ethics cloud, and the House censured him in 2010 after a House ethics committee conducted a hearing on 13 counts of alleged financial and fundraising misconduct over issues surrounding financial disclosures and use of congressional resources. He was convicted by Congress of 11 violations, but he continued to serve in the House until his retirement in 2017.Rangel was the last surviving member of the Gang of Four, Black political figures who wielded great power in New York City and state politics. The others were David Dinkins, New York City’s first Black mayor; Percy Sutton, who was Manhattan borough president; and Basil Paterson, a deputy mayor and secretary of state of New York.Rangel’s distinctive gravelly voice and wry sense of humor made him a memorable character not just in politics but in the rest of his life and environs.The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, paid tribute on X, calling Rangel a “great man, a great friend, and someone who never stopped fighting for his constituents and the best of America”.“The list of his accomplishments could take pages, but he leaves the world a much better place than he found it,” Schumer posted.The House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, also praised Rangel.“Charlie Rangel was a phenomenal patriot, hero, statesman, leader, trailblazer, change agent and champion for justice,” he posted on X.Jeffries, a fellow New Yorker, called Rangel “the Lion of Lenox Ave”, an iconic street at the heart of Harlem, and said he was a transformational force of nature.“Harlem, NYC & America are better today because of his service. May he forever rest in power,” Jeffries posted.Rangel was known for fiercely looking out for his constituents, sponsoring empowerment zones with tax credits for businesses moving into economically depressed areas and developers of low-income housing.“I have always been committed to fighting for the little guy,” Rangel said in 2012.He was known as one of the most liberal representatives in the House, loudest in opposition to the Iraq war, which he branded a “death tax” on poor people and minorities. In 2004, he tried to end the war by offering a bill to restart the military service draft. Republicans called his bluff and brought the bill to a vote. Even Rangel voted against it.A year later, Rangel’s fight over the war became bitterly personal with the then US vice-president, Dick Cheney, Republican president George W Bush’s running mate and a prime defense hawk.Rangel said Cheney, who has a history of heart trouble, might be too sick to perform his job.“I would like to believe he’s sick rather than just mean and evil,” Rangel said. After several such verbal jabs, Cheney hit back, saying Rangel was “losing it”.The Harlem lawmaker first entered the House in 1971. In 1987, Congress approved what was known as the “Rangel amendment”, which denied foreign tax credits to US companies investing in apartheid-era South Africa, where the wealthy ruling white minority held power by heavily oppressing the Black majority.Rangel was born on 11 June 1930. During the Korean war, he earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star.A high school dropout, he went to college on the GI Bill, getting degrees from New York University and St John’s University School of Law.The Associated Press contributed reporting More