Democrats are scrambling for answers in the wake of the shooting massacre in Buffalo, N.Y., the latest in a string of racist mass killings that have stunned the country, terrified minority communities — and frustrated reform-minded lawmakers who are left scouring for a viable response.

The deadly tragedy in Buffalo, where a lone gunman shot 13 people in a grocery store, 11 of them Black, killing 10, follows on the heels of similar bigoted attacks in Texas and Pittsburgh, where racist gunmen singled out specific ethnic minorities they deemed a threat to White culture and power.

And it's put Democrats in a familiar position: Full of ideas for combating racist violence but lacking the political heft to see most of them through.

While House Democratic leaders this week successfully rushed to pass legislation giving the federal government new tools to combat domestic terrorism, the bill appears to lack the needed Republican support to move through the Senate.

Similarly, House Democrats passed legislation last year expanding mandatory background checks prior to gun sales, but the idea has hit a brick wall in the 50-50 upper chamber, where Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to any new restrictions on firearms.

And in a midterm election year, when Democrats are fighting to protect threatened incumbents in tough battleground districts, there's been little appetite to consider stricter firearm controls, such as a ban on military-style semi-automatic rifles, for fear it would haunt those vulnerable lawmakers at the polls in November.

Indeed, unlike the most prominent mass shootings of years past, when Democrats hurried to promote to promote a host of gun reform proposals, the Buffalo massacre has prompted no plan from party leaders to bring more gun legislation to the floor — a strategy that some liberal lawmakers say is a mistake. 

"One issue in the House that we should hopefully revisit is [Rep. David] Cicilline's [D-R.I.] assault weapons ban legislation, which has not yet received a vote," said Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). 

"I wish it would."

The situation highlights the limitations of Democrats’ policy powers, despite their control over the White House and both chambers of Congress. And in the absence of a legislative pathway, Democrats are searching for other avenues to address the scourges of epidemic gun violence, rising white nationalism and the sometimes deadly confluence of the two. 

The suspect in the Buffalo shooting appears to be the latest example, having posted an online screed just before the incident promoting white “replacement theory,” the baseless notion that leftist elites want to grow the numbers of immigrants and other minorities in the United States to dilute the influence of white voters.

Raising public awareness of that threat, some Democrats say, should be the party’s highest priority in the wake of the tragedy.

"We have to speak out, first of all, and talk about the toxic combination of gun violence, white supremacy and domestic terrorism,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a former head of the Congressional Black Caucus. “It's up to Democrats to educate the public about what's taking place in this country. Because if we don't, then people don't really see the connection. And it's Buffalo today, who knows where tomorrow."

President Biden offered a boost to the public messaging effort on Thursday, when he visited the site of the Buffalo shooting — a Tops grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood — and delivered a speech denouncing the “poison” of white supremacy. 

“We need to say as clearly and forcefully as we can that the ideology of white supremacy has no place in America,” Biden said. “None.”

But some Democrats are hoping he will go further, calling on the administration to take unilateral steps aimed at combating gun violence in the absence of congressional action.

Swalwell said a good place to start would be a ban, imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, on devices called auto sears, which convert semi-automatic firearms into automatic weapons. 

“I think by executive order they can fix that,” he said.

Joining Democrats, GOP leaders have condemned the Buffalo massacre — and white supremacy — in no uncertain terms. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) characterized the suspect as “the very worst of humanity.” 

But Republicans have declined to denounce replacement theory. In fact, some GOP lawmakers have promoted similar ideas, warning that Democrats have hopes to solidify political power by flooding the country with like-minded minorities — a strategy that would simultaneously disenfranchise America's white population.

“For many Americans, what seems to be happening, or what they believe right now is happening is — what appears to them is — we’re replacing national-born Americans, native-born Americans, to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation," Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said in a committee hearing last year.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), the third-ranking House Republican, has aired a similar warning, posting Facebook ads last year that accused Democrats of plotting a “PERMANENT ELECTION INSURRECTION” through proposals to grant “amnesty” to undocumented immigrations. 

Those comments — combined with the refusal of GOP leaders to condemn replacement theory by name — have infuriated Democrats on Capitol Hill, who say Republicans want all the political advantages that come with stirring up white grievance without accepting any of the responsibility when someone escalates it to violence. 

“Republicans should denounce replacement theory. That's the first thing that needs to be done,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “Republicans need to acknowledge that this is a false and vile racist theory and they need to tell their supporters that.”

Lieu, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, noted that the panel held a hearing last year on the threat posed by violent white nationalism. One tool Congress now has for taking on the problem, he said, is to fund the law enforcement agencies charged with tackling it properly. 

“The FBI director has said that white nationalist terrorism is the greatest domestic terror threat that we're facing,” he said. “And if the various agencies need more resources, then I think they should ask us, and we'd be happy to look into it.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), head of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, is also planning to call attention to the issue, scheduling a June 8 hearing on gun violence. 

Others haven’t lost hope in the legislative route, and the assault weapons ban is not the only proposal getting renewed attention following the Buffalo shooting. 

Cicilline this week was busy promoting another bill he’s sponsored, along with GOP Rep. Fred Upton (Mich.), that is designed to defuse active-shooter incidents by creating a new post within the Justice Department to coordinate threat information to local authorities in real time. 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) is also floating several reform proposals. Citing the Buffalo suspect’s reported fixation with white supremacist chat rooms, Wasserman Schultz is advocating for Congress to strengthen checks on internet content, a highly contentious topic governed by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

“If you look at the shooter's manifesto .... he was infused with hatred through his time spent on the Internet,” she said. “So, while balancing free speech rights, we have to really deal with the fact that social media is no longer the bulletin board concept that it was when it first came into being. … We have to adopt the virtual version of prohibiting you from shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.”

With the midterms fast approaching, the prospects are slim that such controversial legislation would find the bipartisan support to reach Biden’s desk. Still, some Democratic leaders are hoping to air at least some of those proposals, if only to draw a distinction between the two parties when it comes to combating gun violence.

“What we plan to highlight is inaction on the other side of the chamber, if we can't get something done,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus. “That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. The stakes are too high.”

Rudy Giuliani, who served as a personal lawyer for former President Trump, met with members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot for 9 hours, according to reports from CNN and NBC News.

Two sources told CNN that Giuliani appeared virtually to the committee for a deposition Friday that lasted over nine hours.

Following the 2020 election, the former New York City mayor had echoed claims by the former president that the presidential race was tainted by widespread voter fraud. Giuliani was also part of Trump's core legal team following the Nov. 3 election.

The virtual appearance in front of the committee comes after the committee originally subpoenaed Giuliani in January along with three others: Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell and Boris Epshteyn. The subpoena focused on the former mayor's ability to offer insight into Trump's thinking around Jan. 6, 2021.

"The four individuals we’ve subpoenaed today advanced unsupported theories about election fraud, pushed efforts to overturn the election results, or were in direct contact with the former President about attempts to stop the counting of electoral votes,” committee chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said at the time.

Giuliani declined to appear on the original date after the committee said it would not allow him to record audio and video of the meeting.

The Hill has reached out to Giuliani’s attorney Robert Costello and the Jan. 6 Committee for comment on the deposition.

The Archbishop of San Francisco barred Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from receiving communion over her support for abortion rights.

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said in a letter to Pelosi on Thursday that he had requested to speak to her after she vowed to codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion rights case, in the wake of Texas banning abortions after six weeks last September.

He had warned Pelosi in an April 7 letter, he said, to either repudiate advocacy for abortion rights or to refrain from referring to her Catholic faith in public or else he would have no choice but to bar her from being admitted communion.

“As you have not publically repudiated your position on abortion, and continue to refer to your Catholic faith in justifying your position and to receive Holy Communion, that time has now come,” Cordileone said in the Thursday letter. “Therefore, in light of my responsibility as the Archbishop of San Francisco to be ‘concerned for all the Christian faithful entrusted to [my] care’ (Code of Canon Law, can. 383, §1), by means of this communication I am hereby notifying you that you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.”

Pelosi, who describes herself as a devout Catholic, has defended her support for abortion rights despite the Catholic Church’s stance against abortion.

“I believe that God has given us a free will to honor our responsibilities,” Pelosi said in a press conference last fall.

Pelosi’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Developing

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said “the country is in danger of imploding” while weighing in on the Buffalo, N.Y., shooting and the mood of Black voters in a wide-ranging interview published Friday.

“It's just a mystery to me that we've become so tolerable of these kinds of incidents,” Clyburn told The Washington Post in an interview published in its Early 202 newsletter, referring to last weekend's shooting in a predominantly Black neighborhood that left 10 people dead and three injured.

“It seems as if they were just supposed to happen then you go and wait for the next one to happen. And they're going to keep happening,” he continued. “But look at where we are (in) the country. It seems to be it's coming from all sides. You wonder whether or not people just decided that the pursuit of a more perfect union has come to an end.”

Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement, said that the shooting brought to mind the 2015 Charleston, S.C., church massacre in which nine members of a Black congregation were killed. The gunman had expressed white supremacist views online before the shooting and reportedly said he wanted to start a race war.

“Quite frankly, last year, this time I was in a different place than I am now,” Clyburn told the Early 202.

Asked to elaborate, he added, “I thought in difficult times that this too shall pass. I'm not too sure anymore. I'm really not.”

The House majority whip was also asked about the mood of Black voters in the U.S.

“Dangerous. The mood is very dangerous. It’s not a Democratic problem. It’s the country’s problem,” he said.

“The country is in danger of imploding. Democracy is in danger of disintegrating,” he added, saying "I don’t know why people feel that this country is insulated from the historical trends."

The shooting in Buffalo has put a spotlight on the far-right "great replacement theory" after a screed allegedly posted by the white 18-year-old suspect espoused the theory, which alleges that there is an intentional effort taking place through immigration to replace white Americans with people of color.

Authorities say the suspect intended to carry out the attack in a neighborhood with a significant Black population, and 11 of the 13 victims in the shooting were Black. 

Following the shooting, Democrats have accused Republicans of enabling white nationalism or endorsing the conspiracy theory, though some Republicans have hit back against the assertion.

A resolution introduced by Republicans in both chambers of Congress on Thursday would define words like "woman," "man," "mother," and "father" on the basis of biological sex, a rebuke to transgender and inclusivity measures.

Republicans call the measure a "Women's Bill of Rights," arguing that defining women on the basis of biological sex is necessary to protect women's rights in spaces like domestic violence centers, women’s sports, locker rooms, and bathrooms.

“The Democrats are erasing women and the spaces that are uniquely ours,” Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), who is leading the House version of the bill, said at a press conference announcing the bill on Thursday with the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House.

The resolution, which would not have the force of law, states that the House believes that for the purposes of federal law, “sex” refers to biological sex; terms like “mother” and “father” refer to individuals of the female and male sex, respectively; and that agencies are required to base reported data on the biological sex of individuals at birth.

“It's pretty simple. It acknowledges the biological differences in men and women, highlights the importance of differentiating between men and women involved for the purposes of protecting sex-segregated activities and organizations, and affirms the importance of using ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in written law to protect families,” Lesko said.

The House version of the resolution has 11 cosponsors, and was promoted by the Republican Study Committee, the largest conservative caucus in the House. The Senate version was introduced by GOP Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (Mo.), Cynthia Lummis (Wyo.) and Ted Cruz (Texas).

“The radical Left has launched an attack on biology because they want to put themselves above God, and they want to brainwash our daughters with their woke-ism,” said Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), who is also leading the resolution.

Advocates for transgender people argue that rather than protecting women, the resolution’s real aim is to not acknowledge transgender people.

“The Republican resolution is another in a long line of cynical attempts by anti-LGBTQ extremists around the country to erase transgender and nonbinary people from our communities,” said Olivia Hunt, policy director for the National Center for transgender Equality. “More than a century of science has shown us that biology is far more complicated than what the authors of this resolution describe, and that trans and nonbinary people’s genders are just as real and just as valid as everyone else’s. Science simply doesn’t support this attempt at making our existence a ‘culture war.’”

The measure was based on model legislation developed by the conservative Independent Women's Voice and the Women's Liberation Front, a trans-exclusionary feminist group. The conservative Heritage Action is also supporting the resolution.

Definitions of men and women fueled Republicans, who referenced Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson responding to being asked to define “woman” during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and responded by saying that she is not a biologist. 

Earlier in the week, Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) asked a Democratic witness at a hearing to define what a woman is and asked whether men could get pregnant and have abortions. The witness Aimee Arrambide, executive director of an abortion rights nonprofit, said that “everyone can identify for themselves” and that men could get pregnant.

“As a pharmacist, allow me to define a woman. Females are the six that have the capacity to bear children and produce eggs,” Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.) said at the press conference. “Women have two X chromosomes and are born with a uterus and ovaries.”

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chair of the Republican Study Committee and a cosponsor of the resolution, described being suspended from Twitter over misgendering Assistant Secretary for Health Dr. Rachel Levine, the first openly transgender official confirmed by the Senate. He argued that he was “pointing out obvious truth about biological sex.”

Hunt said that Republicans are engaging in “bullying disguised as lawmaking.”

“They give permission for people to hate or to be afraid of people they don’t understand. Transgender and non-binary people are already at great risk of discrimination, harassment and violence,” Hunt said. “And these politicians want to do even worse by denying us access to health care, banning young people from school sports, and pretending that we don’t exist. But transgender people have always been a part of American society. And we always will be.”

The Congressional Black Caucus is seeking a meeting with President Biden to discuss student loan debt, calling on the White House to approve broad-based cancellation of federal debt through executive action.

“The $1.7 trillion student loan debt crisis is a racial and economic justice issue disproportionately impacting Black communities across the nation,” Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) said in a written statement on Friday.

“We are calling on the Biden Administration to implement broad-based student loan debt cancellation by executive action. We are committed to working with the Administration to explore all options and we are requesting to meet with the President,” Beatty said. “This is a crisis created through policy decisions, and we have a responsibility to address it head-on.”

Senate Democrats met with Biden earlier this week to push for significant action on student loans.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), who attended the Wednesday meeting along with Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said he met with Biden to "stress the urgency" of the issue and “how important it is to Georgians.”

Biden supported canceling at least $10,000 in federal student loan debt per borrower during his 2020 presidential campaign, though many in his party want him to go as high as canceling $50,000 or wiping out the debt entirely.

Pressed by reporters shortly after the meeting, Warnock acknowledged the president “has publicly said he would not do $50,000,” but he added he wanted “to make sure that we help enough people in a way that will make a difference.”

While Warnock wouldn’t divulge many details about the private meeting, he called it “productive,” and told The Hill the president appeared “receptive to getting this done.”

Warnock and other Democrats pushing for widespread student loan forgiveness often point to the racial disparities that persist among borrowers, particularly the disproportionate burden faced by Black borrowers.

In her statement on Friday, Beatty called canceling student loan debt “one of the most impactful ways to address ongoing economic and racial inequities plaguing our nation.”

“As representatives of more than 17 million Black Americans and 80 million Americans, the urgency of this moment requires we move with intention,” she said. “In order to reduce the racial wealth gap and advance a just and equitable economic recovery for all, we must alleviate the burden of student debt. Nothing is off the table, except inaction.”

Some GOP lawmakers are getting frustrated with the hard-line tactics of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.  

Members of the group have forced recorded votes on normally non-controversial bills on the suspension calendar, forcing lawmakers to hang around the chamber for hours to get their votes in rather than conduct other business.

It led to a confrontation on Tuesday night during a two-and-a-half-hour vote series on 13 separate measures between Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, and Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.), who is the chair of the group. 

Republicans gave different accounts of just how heated a discussion took place.  

One source familiar with the situation said Rogers with a raised voice said that there will be consequences or repercussions for members of the House Freedom Caucus if the delaying tactics continue. A GOP member on the floor at the time of the exchange confirmed that version of events.  

Rodgers, however, told The Hill that he didn’t make any threats and insisted that the conversation was not heated on his part. 

He said that he told the Freedom Caucus members: “​​I’m just telling y'all, just giving you a heads up, you’re getting a lot of ill will around here. This stuff will come back to you. You just can't do this to people and think that they're not going to remember it.” 

“I just was being, you know, a senior member trying to help members understand, what goes around comes around in this place,” Rogers said. 

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who is not in the Freedom Caucus, were also present for the exchange.  

Bills and resolutions considered under suspension of the rules have historically passed by voice vote, often with few members in the House chamber. They account for the majority of bills passed in modern Congresses. But House Freedom Caucus members last year started demanding recorded votes for those bills, drastically changing the pace of floor action. 

Perry and Roy in a joint interview argued that most all bills deserve a recorded vote, that it gives more time for members to review the legislation, and that leadership often sneaks through controversial bills as suspension bills. Members should not be considered as on record supporting a bill that passed by voice vote if they did not get a chance to vote on it, they say. 

“What ought to happen in this body, irrespective of what we're doing at any particular moment, is we ought to have a consensus on a fair way to move bills through appropriately, where we start with the default position of voting, and you're only moving something by voice or consent when there's universal agreement that is unobjectionable,” Roy said. 

Freedom Caucus members have also argued that the tactic helps slow down and delay Democrats’ agenda. 

The suspension bills need support from two-thirds of the House to pass, and because of the requests for recorded votes, some of the measures have failed due to GOP opposition.  

A bill to require collection of small business loan data to LGBTQ-owned businesses in order to prohibit discrimination, as well as a bill to require the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide access to contraceptives without co-pays, failed under suspension last year but later passed after going through the normal rules process. Another measure to allow the District of Columbia to increase pay for its chief financial officer also failed under suspension. 

But those bills are the exception, and many of the recorded votes result in a handful of nays. Freedom Caucus members frequently vote in favor of the bills, and some get unanimous support. 

Recent measures considered under suspension of the rules that passed with overwhelming support included bills requiring training for Department of Veterans Affairs employees on reporting wrongdoing and directing the Treasury secretary to secure debt relief for Ukraine. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) was the only vote against a resolution calling on leaders to condemn antisemitism on Wednesday. 

But some of the requests prompt public pushback. 

Just before the House was set to vote on five bills to name post offices last Thursday, Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) asked that the ordering for the yeas and nays on five Post Office naming bills be vacated since all of the names were after members of the military and “war heroes,” as he said. Members on both sides of the aisle cheered.  

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) objected, drawing boos, and members stayed for another 45 minutes to vote on the bills. 

Some Republican members walking into votes before a session that ended just before 11 p.m. Wednesday night openly grumbled about being there so late for non-controversial bills.  

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who was Freedom Caucus chair last year before Perry, said on Gaetz’s podcast on Wednesday that a Republican who was “in his face” on the House floor Tuesday night said that he had better things to be doing than voting.  

“And I said, “Well, like what?’ He said, ‘Well, you know, I can't do my social media and I can't do media hits,’” Biggs said. 

The long vote sessions in the evening can also keep members from fundraisers, meetings with constituents and interest groups, and other activities. 

Gaetz mused on his podcast this week that the recent floor confrontations are an indication of a fight brewing between the Freedom Caucus and GOP leadership. Perry downplayed that, though. 

“They’ve been somewhat agnostic about it,” Perry said of GOP leadership. “They know that some people are for it, some people don't like it.” 

But the dynamic could preview pressure tactics that the hard-line conservative caucus shifts on to its own party leaders next year.  

Perry didn’t rule out calling for voice votes on suspension bills next year if Republicans win the majority and leadership continues the practice of passing suspension bills by voice vote.  

“We hope this is not an issue, because we're hoping that we can get to some point of fairness, now, that becomes the standard,” Perry said. 

Freedom Caucus members also argued that Democrats control the House schedule and how long it takes to vote. Pandemic-era proxy voting, requiring members to vocally vote for a member not present, can stretch five-minute votes to 10 or 15 minutes. 

But members are still making better time than the beginning of 2021, when procedures put in place due to COVID-19 kept all votes open for 45 minutes. 

“I wish the Democrats could speed it up. Maybe we should do two-minute votes,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) 

Mychael Schnell contributed. 

Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who lost his primary race to state Sen. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) earlier this week, said in an Instagram post on Thursday that “it’s time for the rise of the new right.”

“It’s time for the rise of the new right, it’s time for Dark MAGA to truly take command. We have an enemy to defeat, but we will never be able to defeat them until we defeat the cowardly and weak members of our own party. Their days are numbered. We are coming,” he wrote. It was unclear what enemy he was referring to.

His post also included a list of names of people and groups he said had come to his defense “when it was not politically profitable,” which included Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), former President Trump, the NRA, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), among others.

“These are honorable men and women who are the type of friends anyone yearns to have. ‘At the beginning of a change the patriot is a rare and hated man.’ These are those rare and hated men/women. There are other National figures who I believe are patriots, but I am on a mission now to expose those who say and promise one thing yet legislate and work towards another, self-profiteering, globalist goal,” Cawthorn said.

Some on social media pointed out what appeared to be a typo, suggesting the congressman meant to say “genteel” when he wrote, “The time for gentile politics as usual has come to an end.” 

Cawthorn’s remarks come as he lost his primary race in the state's 11th Congressional District on Tuesday to Edwards, despite receiving the backing of Trump.

The North Carolina Republican faced a slew of controversies in recent months, including over remarks he made calling the Ukrainian government “evil” and its president a “thug,” his claim that he had been invited to orgies in Washington and seen people doing cocaine and a leaked video in which he is seen nude, which he said was “blackmail.”

After conceding the race, Cawthorn called on Republicans in his district to “to rally behind the Republican ticket to defeat the Democrats’ nominee this November."

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called on Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the party’s campaign arm, to “step aside” from those responsibilities if he follows through with mounting a primary challenge against another Democratic incumbent in their state.

“Given the resources that he has at his helm, it creates a conflict of interest,” Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview with Politico.

“If he’s going to enter in a primary and challenge another Democratic member, then he should step aside from his responsibilities at the DCCC.”

The New York progressive claimed that Maloney's decision to run in the state’s newly drawn 17th Congressional District, in a map that still needs to be finalized, instead of the 18th Congressional District he currently represents, is “particularly shameful as a member of Democratic leadership, especially as the leadership of the DCCC, who asks all of us to make sacrifices in one way or another, who asks progressives to make sacrifices on their stances in order to preserve a majority." 

Earlier this week, Maloney announced he would be running in the state’s 17th District following a new court-sanctioned map unveiled on Monday. Though the new district includes his home, it would also mean setting up a member-on-member primary as the 17th is currently represented by Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.).

“While the process to draw these maps without the legislature is against the will of voters, if the newly-announced maps are finalized, I will run in New York's 17th Congressional District. NY-17 includes my home and many of the Hudson Valley communities I currently represent,” Maloney tweeted on Monday.

“Further, I believe I am the only sitting member who resides in NY17,” he added in a separate tweet.

The court-sanctioned map would also introduce another member-on-member primary challenge for Jones, since the new map places his home in the 16th District, currently represented by Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), pitting two members of the Congressional Black Caucus against each other. 

The map still needs to be finalized.

“Rep. Maloney fought harder than anyone to get maps that reflect the will of the people of New York, even at his own expense, and continues to fight against this illegitimate process. He has proven he can lead the DCCC without his own race interfering and he will continue to do so,” DCCC communications director Chris Hayden said in a statement to The Hill.  

In a statement released through his campaign on Thursday, Bowman asserted that he would still be running in his district and urged Maloney to run in the one he currently represents, the 18th.

"I want to be very clear: New York’s Sixteenth Congressional District is my home. The people of this district are my people. Regardless of what the final maps say, I will run again in this district,” Bowman said.

“But let’s also be clear about this: two Black men who worked hard to represent their communities, who fight hard for their constituents in Congress and advocate for dire needs in our communities should not be pitted against each other all because Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney wants to have a slightly easier district for himself,” he continued. “The Democratic Party should not tolerate or condone those who try to dismantle and tear down Black power in Congress.”

"The solution is simple. Congressman Maloney should run in his own district. I’ll be running in mine,” he added.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support for Maloney during a press conference on Thursday.

“We have a great chairman of the DCCC, he’s a master of the three Ms,” Pelosi said, listing them as mobilization, messaging and money.

“He has worked very hard. I’m very proud of the work he has done.”

The Hill has reached out to Ocasio-Cortez’s office for further comment.

A negotiating group led by House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Thursday unveiled a bill that would begin the process of undoing Puerto Rico's territorial status, widely seen as a colonialist vestige. 

The consensus bill brought together two opposing sides in the Puerto Rico status debate: those who advocate for and those who oppose the idea of statehood. 

If the bill is passed, Puerto Rican voters would go to the polls to choose statehood, independence, or independence followed by a compact of free association with the United States. 

The compromise is the first status proposal in history that does not include an option to extend the current territorial status. 

"Let me tell you what this bill is about. Does the United States want to be a colonial power? I hope the answer to that is 'no.' Emphatic no. That is not a political issue. That is a principle issue. That's an issue of what our country is about. We believe in self determination," said Hoyer at the bill's presentation. 

The Puerto Rico Status Act is the result of months of negotiations led by Hoyer between Reps. Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Puerto Rico Resident Commissioner Jenniffer González-Colón (R). 

Soto and González-Colón are the House's two most vocal defenders of statehood for the U.S. Caribbean territory, while Velázquez has long been a fierce opponent of the push for statehood, and has consistently been an advocate for Puerto Rican issues in Congress. 

That split reflects the core of Puerto Rico's politics, which have orbited around the issue of status – and more specifically statehood – since the island's current political system was put in place in the 1950s. 

While the fight over status historically included implicit or explicit support from some actors to maintain the status quo, that position was effectively erased off the political map by a series of crises and Supreme Court decisions. 

A 2017 resolution by the Supreme Court determined unequivocally that Puerto Rico is a territory, subject to the jurisdiction of Congress and without control over its sovereignty. The island's 2016 bankruptcy spurred Congress to impose a federal oversight board to control the island's finances. 

Red tape and politicization of relief after Hurricanes Irma and María further emphasized the territorial status's deficiencies. 

Puerto Rican advocates in Congress presented the two competing bills – Soto and González-Colón for statehood, Velázquez and Ocasio-Cortez for a self-determination convention – but neither bill got the necessary traction to eclipse the other. 

Later, Hoyer and House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) stepped in to take a shot at a consensus option. 

Grijalva had previously told The Hill that the status debate was casting a shadow over other Puerto Rico priorities. 

The negotiations took place in secrecy over three months, with outside groups on either side often pressuring to get their desired results. 

"After months, months, of sincere discussions and negotiations we can proudly announce that we have reached an agreement on a path forward to solve once and for all the island's political status," said González-Colón. 

Under the deal, Grijalva will visit the island with Natural Resources Committee staff to hold open hearings on the bill text – a first, since Puerto Ricans have no voting representation in Congress – and a binding referendum on the three options will be set for Nov. 5, 2023. 

If no single option wins a majority of voters in the 2023 referendum, a runoff will be held between the two remaining options early in 2024. 

If the bill is passed and statehood wins, an admissions process would kick off. The two other options are full independence, or independence followed by a compact of free association, where a sovereign Puerto Rico would agree to share some government functions with the United States, each as an independent nation. 

The bill as currently written details what the transition process would look like if any of the three options were put in place, including chapters on how to deal with Puerto Ricans’ current U.S. citizenship. 

Under the statehood option, Puerto Ricans would continue to be U.S. citizens indefinitely, while the two independence options would maintain U.S. citizenship for existing citizens, but citizens of an independent Puerto Rico born after independence would eventually be subject to U.S. immigration laws. 

Under free association as described in the bill, the children of Puerto Ricans who are also U.S. citizens would continue to receive U.S. citizenship as long as the compact between the two nations lasts. 

"The consensus clearly defines Puerto Rico's non territorial status options, statehood, independence and free association," said Velázquez. 

"It is the first time Congress recognizes free association as a status option where the American citizenship of Puerto Ricans will be respected. Importantly, provisions on rights to U.S. citizenship are included in both independence and free association options," she added. 

The bill's presentation saw Velázquez and González-Colón, once bitter political rivals, sharing a stage to present a consensus bill. 

While both lawmakers remarked on the unlikelihood of their alliance, they both made clear which status option they prefer under the bill: Velázquez is partial to independence with free association, while González-Colón favors statehood. 

The bill faces an uncertain battle to get to President Biden's desk, and the current Congress will be working against the clock to pass it before a new Congress takes over, potentially with new majorities. 

Still, Pierluisi said he is confident the bill will make it through the House, with González-Colón adding bipartisan support for the effort. 

"This bill in all likelihood will gain bipartisan support. I expect many more Democrats supporting the bill than Republicans, but it'll get support from both sides of the aisle. So I would anticipate that it will be a clear court clear cut majority vote for the bill when it hits the floor. That's my expectation in the House," said Pierluisi. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said Congress could pass the "transformational" Competes Act before July 4, saying they hope to celebrate its passage before the holiday.

The Competes Act of 2022 would approve billions of dollars for programs to accelerate U.S. manufacturing of critical supplies and goods such as semiconductor chips, increasing U.S. might in sectors dominated largely by China.

The bill is also intended to address the supply chain disruptions still plaguing the nation, which has helped fuel inflation.

At her weekly press conference, Pelosi said there is currently "a big lobbying effort" in Congress around the Competes Act, but she added she still hopes for passage of the bill before Independence Day.

"It's a transformational bill for America that will make us independent, that will make us self-sufficient," Pelosi said.

The bill is more than 2,000 pages long and will authorize a wide array of services, investments and programs intended to increase American-made goods and address supply chain woes that shook the economy during the pandemic.

At its heart, the Competes Act will create a $52 billion fund via the Chips for America Act to invest in U.S.-produced semiconductor chips; authorize $45 billion to bolster American supply chains; and create new programs and research centers to help advance scientific research into cutting edge technologies.

Supply chain disruptions — including a massive semiconductor chip shortage — caused by the pandemic are one reason for inflation reaching a 40-year high in April. High inflation and economic concerns are the largest concern for American voters ahead of the midterm elections, according to polls.

The Competes Act first passed the House in February before a separate but similar piece of legislation was passed in the Senate in March. Congress is now trying to reconcile differences and marry the legislation together before sending it to President Biden's desk.

Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) said Congress held its first workshop on the Competes Act on May 12, promoting the bill on Twitter as a measure that will "fight inflation & lower costs."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called on her Republican colleagues on Thursday to denounce the “great replacement” theory, which sprung into the national spotlight this week after a gunman who allegedly espoused the racist conspiracy shot 13 people in Buffalo, N.Y., 11 of whom were Black.

Some Trump-aligned Republicans have come under fire in the wake of the shooting, which killed 10, for past comments implying that Democrats and other top figures have tried to empower minorities through immigration policy at the expense of white individuals.

Pelosi — speaking at a press conference on the steps of the Capitol alongside members of the congressional Black, Asian and Hispanic caucuses — said violence must be stopped and emphasized the Democratic push for firearm background checks, before asserting that current circumstances are being “compounded by the replacement theory.”

“It's an extremely alarming and despicable idea and it must be rejected by anyone who claims to embrace our American ideals,” Pelosi said. “It's spread by social media algorithms where people find people who think the way they do, in an evil way, promoted on top television networks, yes, it is.”

She then turned to her colleagues across the aisle.

“And trafficked, as has been mentioned here by leading political figures. Why isn't everyone in this Congress saying I reject replacement theory?” Pelosi said, eliciting applause from the Democrats surrounding her.

House GOP leadership rebutted allegations hurled by Democrats that accused their rhetoric of contributing to white supremacy following the Buffalo shooting, regarding them as all politics. Rank-and-file members of the conference also dismissed accusations that leadership was entertaining white nationalism.

But while Democrats have been vocal in their vehement opposition to the right-wing theory, Republicans for the most part have been silent on the topic.

And on Wednesday night, nearly all House Republicans voted against the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, which leadership brought up in the aftermath of the shooting. President Biden on Tuesday called the deadly attack "domestic terrorism."

The bill passed in a 222-203 vote, with only one Republican — Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) — supporting the measure.

Pelosi, during her weekly press conference earlier on Thursday, commented on the GOP's opposition to the bill, saying Republicans "don't even vote for domestic terrorism."

"Isn't that sad?" she added.

Pelosi on Thursday, during remarks from the steps of the Capitol, tied the conspiracy to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol, saying the riot “had the same racist elements to it and replacement theory background to it.”

“America, open your eyes to this hateful replacement theory that is taking lives and taking a toll on the spirit of democracy in our country,” she later added, after reading a section of the poem “I Have No Other Country” by Israeli poet Ehud Manor.

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is asking Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) to voluntarily appear before its investigators, arguing he may have knowledge about reconnaissance tours through the building the day before the deadly riot.

“Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021,” the panel wrote in the letter to Loudermilk.

“Public reporting and witness accounts indicate some individuals and groups engaged in efforts to gather information about the layout of the U.S. Capitol, as well as the House and Senate office buildings, in advance of January 6, 2021.”

The letter does not spell out why Loudermilk is of interest, but it does note his involvement in an effort from the House Committee on Administration, which urged release of Capitol Police footage of the Capitol's tunnels and entrances and exits on Jan. 5.

The letter to the Capitol Police Board — first obtained by The Hill in February — claimed that the video showed “no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on.” 

“The Select Committee’s review of evidence directly contradicts that denial,” the committee writes to Loudermilk.

Developing.

The head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told a House panel Thursday that the infant formula shortages will begin to ease over the next few days, but had few answers for how the agency allowed a manufacturing plant with known safety issues to continue operating for months without stepping in.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf was the first administration official to answer questions before Congress about the formula shortage, which has recently caught lawmakers's attention. Now facing pressure from frustrated families, those lawmakers are finding no easy solutions. 

The scarcity is partly due to the closure of a manufacturing plant operated by Abbott Nutrition. The plant has been shut down since February, after four infants who consumed formula made there were hospitalized with a rare bacterial infection. 

The FDA earlier this week announced a preliminary consent agreement with Abbott to restart production, pending safety upgrades and certifications.

"I am pleased to say we've made very significant progress" on reopening the plant, Califf told members of a House appropriations subcommittee, "and I think we are on track to get it open within the next week to two weeks, most likely at the outbound two weeks."

Califf said the combination of increased production from other manufacturers and new authority on importing formula means "we should see improvement within days."

However, he acknowledged "it will be a few weeks before we're back to normal."

Abbott has said once production resumes, it will take between six and eight weeks before new formula will get to store shelves. 

Lawmakers grilled Califf about why it took months to inspect the plant, even though agency officials knew about longstanding safety conditions. But Califf declined to answer in any detail, citing an ongoing internal investigation. 

The lack of disclosure did not sit well with lawmakers.

"This is something parents are asking us about, they want to know what happened. It's not acceptable to say you can't comment on it," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.). "This is a problem I’ve seen over and over with the FDA: You guys aren’t good at communicating." 

Califf's appearance comes the day after the House passed $28 million in emergency funding for the agency aimed at addressing the supply concerns, and after the Biden administration announced new measures to boost supply, including invoking the Defense Production Act.

Califf said much of the agency's problems stem from a lack of resources, most notably a lack of inspectors and an outdated IT system. If the extra money is appropriated, he said the agency will use the bulk of it to hire more inspectors. 

Republicans have turned the shortages into a political blame game for the Biden administration, though members of both parties have expressed frustration at what they said was a lack of accountability from the FDA.

Leading the charge was Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. She pressed Califf for details about which officials saw a whistleblower report sent to the agency in October, and why there was no action taken.

"You can't hide behind an investigation, we need answers now," DeLauro said. 

The report from a former Abbott employee detailed major observed violations of safety rules, including falsifying records and releasing untested infant formula. 

Yet even before the report, FDA was aware that infants had become sick after consuming formula made at Abbott's Michigan plant. 

FDA staff did not interview the whistleblower until December, and the facility wasn't inspected until January. 

“It all begs the question, why did the FDA not spring into action? Why did it take four months to pull this formula from shelves?" DeLauro said.

"It makes me question which side the FDA is on. Are they on the side of Abbott, the industry, or on the side of the American consumer, in this case babies, and their moms and dads?"

More than 1,300 children's book authors are signing onto a letter to Congress condemning the recent spate of bans at school libraries in Republican-led states, which came ahead of a Thursday House hearing that heard testimony overwhelmingly from advocates speaking out against the censorship.

The letter is signed by famous and well-known authors including Judy Blume, Mo Willems and Rick Riordan, who say the bans are targeting not just their works and the nation's intellectual discourse, but also the "children, families, and communities who are caught in the crosshairs of these campaigns."

"When books are removed or flagged as inappropriate, it sends the message that the people in them are somehow inappropriate. It is a dehumanizing form of erasure." the letter reads. "Every reader deserves to see themselves and their families positively represented in the books in their schools."

Authors sent the letter to Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which held its second hearing on the issue Thursday.

In opening statements, Raskin said, "Book censorship wrecks the healthy environment for free inquiry and learning," and tied book bans to rising extremism in the nation, including the white supremacist gunman who shot and killed 10 people at a majority-Black neighborhood supermarket in Buffalo last weekend.

"These laws are being used to undermine public faith in public schools and destroy one of the key pillars of our democracy," Raskin said.

During the hearing, lawmakers heard from people who identify with the LGBTQ community, including high-school students and teachers who spoke out against the bans because they can lead to mental health issues for LGBTQ students, who have some of the highest rates of suicide in the nation.

Lawmakers also heard from a historian who warned banning books would be the beginning "of the end for democracy," as well as other free speech activists.

One parent-activist spoke out in support of the bans, arguing against racial or sexual indoctrination.

Since 2021, officials have placed more than 1,500 bans or restrictions on books in 86 school districts across 26 states, according to an April report from advocacy group PEN America.

The states with the most restrictions or bans on books in public schools include Texas at 713, Pennsylvania with 456, Florida's 204, Oklahoma's 43, Kansas's 30 and Tennessee with 16.

Tennessee has proposed one of the most restrictive bills, advancing a measure this spring to ban any book supporting LGBTQ issues. One Tennessee state lawmaker has said he would "burn" books that he objected to during an assembly session on tightening book review restrictions.

Republicans have objected to books that they consider salacious or that indoctrinate students on issues including race or gender. Critical race theory, an academic framework based on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation’s institutions, has also been a focal point for the book bans.

During Thursday's hearings, Mace, a Republican, said she supports teaching the full history of the U.S., but that she has "seen attempts to indoctrinate our students" on topics that should not fit into the school curriculum.

"Our children's innocence should be protected and prioritized," she said, arguing against critical race theory or hyper-sexual topics.

The Hill has compiled a list of the 10 most targeted books, including "The Hate U Give" by Angie Thomas, which focuses on a high-schooler who witnesses the death of her friend at the hands of a police officer, and "Maus" by Art Spiegelman, a critically acclaimed graphic novel about World War II and the Holocaust.

Thomas signed the letter that was sent to Congress on Tuesday, as did John Green, whose book "Looking for Alaska" has been frequently targeted. Other signers whose books are on the list of most targeted include Lesléa Newman, Jerry Craft and Maia Kobabe.

The authors argue that libraries and school systems have systems in place that allow parents to express concerns about a book, but outright bans are harmful. Recent progress to include more Black, Indigenous and people of color in books is being eroded by the increased censorship, they wrote.

"A book may not be for every student, but — as we know from the many letters we receive from young readers — a single book can matter deeply to an individual student," the letter reads. "Libraries are bastions of the First Amendment. They provide equal access to a wealth of knowledge and ideas for all public school students."

Four Democrats bucked party lines on Wednesday and voted against a bill that seeks to combat alleged gas price gouging.

The legislation, dubbed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, passed the House in a 217-207 vote. All of those who voted for the bill were Democrats, and five Republicans did not vote.

Reps. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) broke from the rest of the Democratic caucus and voted against the measure.

The bill aims to ban the sale of fuel at an “excessive” price during times that are considered an energy emergency, but it does not offer particulars on what that price threshold is. It also seeks to give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to pursue legal action if it discovers that price gouging is taking place.

Many economists and market analysts have said they do not see evidence of price gouging despite Democrats’ claims, arguing that the bill is a political gesture.

Democrats have said record profits recently posted by major oil companies as the country deals with high prices is evidence of “gouging.”

The bill comes as gas prices in the U.S. have skyrocketed. On Thursday, regular gasoline averaged about $4.59, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA).

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where it is unlikely to make it over the hurdle of GOP opposition.

Murphy in a statement on Thursday said the price-gouging bill “takes the wrong approach,” claiming that it “could further reduce supply” and worsen the current situation.

“At best, this bill is a distraction that won’t actually address the problem. At worst, it could make the problem more severe,” Murphy wrote.

She also cited comments from Larry Summers, who served Treasury Secretary during the Clinton administration. Summers said the bill would not reduce inflation, but could “cause and contrive all kinds of shortages.” 

Fletcher in a statement on Thursday said “this legislation is not the answer.”

“The Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act would not fix high gasoline prices at the pump, and has the potential to exacerbate the supply shortage our country is facing, leading to even worse outcomes,” she wrote. “For these reasons, I voted no on this legislation today.”

The Hill reached out to Rice and Golden for comment on their votes.

Another lawmaker, Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), had indicated skepticism of the bill and said Wednesday that he was "leaning no" but voted in favor of the bill on Thursday.

His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

This story was updated at 1:17 p.m.

The House voted Thursday to pass Democrats’ bill aimed at combating “price gouging” on gasoline.

The bill passed 217-207, with no Republicans voting for it and four Democrats voting against it: Reps. Stephanie Murphy (Fla.), Lizzie Fletcher (Texas), Kathleen Rice (N.Y.) and Jared Golden (Maine).

The legislation is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate, where it would need the support of 10 Republicans to advance, but it’s part of a major messaging push by Democrats as they try to blame the oil industry for skyrocketing prices. 

Their claims of price gouging have been met with some skepticism from analysts, who have blamed market forces — rather than gouging — for high gasoline prices.

Still, Democrats point to record profits posted by major oil companies as evidence of an issue. 

“What’s infuriating is that this is happening at the same time that gas and oil companies are raking in record profits and then putting those dollars into stock buybacks,” bill sponsor Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.) said in a floor speech on Thursday. 

The legislation, from Schrier and Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.), would outlaw the selling of fuel at an “excessive” price during an energy emergency, though it does not detail any particular price threshold.

The bill would also empower the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to pursue legal action if instances of price gouging are discovered.

Gas prices hit new highs this week, averaging about $4.59 on Thursday.

Market analysts have said repeatedly that the high prices are being primarily driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as well as pandemic recovery. 

Some said that the latest spike is related to factors including refiners shifting toward other, more profitable fuels.

Republicans argued that Democrats were seeking to shift blame for the gasoline prices. 

“First they blamed it on COVID, then they blamed it on Putin…and now they’re blaming it on mom and pop gas stations who are often just struggling to get by,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.). 

House Energy and Commerce Chairman, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) argued on Thursday that even if gouging isn’t behind the prices, there is no harm in voting to give the FTC the ability to pursue actual cases of wrongdoing. 

“Even if it weren’t the issue, or even if you don’t think it’s the issue, what is the harm of giving the FTC the authority to go after oil companies if they are price gouging?” he asked during a floor speech. 

— Mychael Schnell contributed.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday offered her full-throated support for Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), the head of the party’s campaign arm, who’s come under fire from some Democrats for his potential primary challenge of a Black freshman in a neighboring district.

“We’re very proud of Sean Patrick Maloney,” Pelosi told reporters at her weekly press conference in the Capitol.

The court battle over New York’s new congressional lines resulted in Monday’s unveiling of a court-sanctioned map that, if finalized, would disadvantage Democrats, pitting incumbents against incumbents in a series of races that sets the stage for Republicans to pick up House seats in November’s midterms. 

The stunning development prompted Maloney to announce that he’ll seek reelection, not in the 18th District he currently represents, but in the 17th District, represented by Rep. Mondaire Jones, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. Complicating the debate, the new map would place Maloney’s residence in the 17th District, while Jones’s home would rest in the 16th, currently represented by Rep. Jamaal Bowman, another liberal Black freshman.  

Jones has not indicated his plans for November’s race, but Maloney’s potential move to the 17th District leaves him with tough choices: challenge Maloney or jump into the neighboring 16th District and take on Bowman.

Another available to Maloney, which some of Jones’s and Bowman’s allies are pushing, is for the congressman to remain in his 18th District, which is the most competitive of the three for Democrats.

The prospect of having the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), who oversees the party’s campaign strategy and spending, take on an incumbent has raised plenty of eyebrows within the caucus, prompting some calls for Maloney to step down from the DCCC if a challenge emerges between him and Jones in New York’s August primary.

“Unfortunately, it puts him in a position of needing to step down from that position, so that the DCCC can avoid an appearance of impropriety,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who like Jones is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “That's an unfortunate situation.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is also poised to run against one of his colleagues because of the new maps, told The Hill on Wednesday that Maloney should “probably not” be leading the DCCC if he takes on another member in November.

“I have to look at the situation more,” he added.

Democrats are facing difficult odds of keeping control of the House in November’s midterms. Still, Pelosi on Thursday praised Maloney’s work in a challenging cycle. 

“We have a great chairman of the DCCC, he’s a master of the three Ms,” Pelosi said, noting that they are mobilization, messaging and money, referring to fundraising efforts.

“He has worked very hard, I’m very proud of the work he has done.”

Pelosi declined to endorse specific candidates, but suggested Maloney is in his right to jump into the 17th District, since his residence is there. She noted that New York’s new map will be finalized on Friday, when the real plans about midterm plans will have to be decided.

“I’m not getting involved in the politics of New York and their redistricting,” Pelosi said. “He as well as other members of the New York delegation said they were gonna run in districts where their home is. They’ll find out what district that is on Friday when the announcement is made.”

Asked if the turmoil among the New York delegation will affect the party at large, Pelosi said “not at all.”

Members of a House panel will "examine the gun violence crisis in the United States” during a hearing in June, its chairwoman announced on Thursday.

The hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, scheduled for June 8, comes after recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and in California, Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) noted in a statement. 

“This past weekend, from Buffalo, New York to Laguna Woods, California, families lost loved ones to violent acts of hate made more deadly by guns,” Maloney said. 

“As Chairwoman on the Committee on Oversight and Reform, I am committed to using my gavel to continue the Committee’s urgent work to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals, secure community spaces, and hold those who fuel the gun violence crisis accountable,” Maloney added.

The hearing comes after 10 people were killed in Buffalo at a mass shooting in a grocery store over the weekend. That shooting is being investigated as a hate crime as the suspect reportedly targeted a predominantly Black neighborhood.

Multiple people were also shot and one person died over the weekend at a church in California in a shooting motivated by political hatred against Taiwan, according to authorities.

Speaking at a White House celebration of Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month on Tuesday, both President Biden and Vice President Harris condemned the violence and hatred seen across the country.

“Hate can have no safe harbor in America. And every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect,” Biden said at the event.

“We must always speak out against violence, against hate crimes and against discrimination whenever and wherever it occurs. And we must do everything in our power to end this epidemic of hate,” Harris added.

Gun violence continues to plague the country with a recent analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that the U.S. in 2020 saw the highest firearm homicide rate in more than 25 years.

The analysis showed that firearms were involved in 79 percent of all homicides in 2020, an uptick of nearly 35 percent from 2019. 

A handful of Republican lawmakers bucked their party on Wednesday in votes on two separate bills aiming to address the nationwide baby formula shortage causing rising concern for parents across the country.

The main bill, dubbed the Infant Formula Supplemental Appropriations Act, passed in a 231-192 vote that mainly broke along party lines. Four Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

The legislation would grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) $28 million in emergency funding to respond to the scarcity of baby formula.

Twelve Republicans bucked House GOP leadership and voted for the legislation: Reps. Don Bacon (Neb.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Trey Hollingsworth (Ind.), John Katko (N.Y.), Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), David McKinley (W.Va.), Tom Rice (S.C.), Chris Smith (N.J.), Michael Turner (Ohio), Fred Upton (Mich.) and Ann Wagner (Mo.).

Earlier on Wednesday, Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) sent a memo to all House GOP offices recommending that members vote against the legislation. He argued that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) brought up the bill “in hopes of covering up the administration’s ineptitude by throwing additional money at the FDA with no plan to actually fix the problem, all while failing to hold the FDA accountable.”

The House on Wednesday also passed the Access to Baby Formula Act in a 414-9 vote that was largely bipartisan. Five Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.

The bill calls for permanently relaxing restrictions on the kinds of baby formula that individuals in the federal low-income assistance program for women, children and infants are allowed to purchase. The program is formally known as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly referred to as the WIC program.

The only opposition to the legislation came from the Republican Party: the no votes were Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Clay Higgins (La.), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Chip Roy (Texas).

There was no overlap in the two groups of GOP outlier votes.

Massie and Greene have stood out for their votes on a number of recent occasions, at times bucking the majority of their party to oppose bipartisan measures such as aide to Ukraine and sanctions against Russia.

The baby formula bills come as parents across the country are struggling to purchase formula for their children, leaving lawmakers scrambling to restock shelves and prevent the scarcity from worsening.

The U.S. has been grappling with the instant baby formula shortage since at least the week beginning April 24, when the out-of-stock percentage of the merchandise reached 40 percent, according to an analysis by retail tracking company Datasembly.