The Rhode Island Senate on Thursday approved a $14 billion budget proposal for the 2024 fiscal year that begins July 1, a week after the House also approved the spending plan.

The bill directs spending toward the housing crisis, supports business development and makes education funding more equitable while limiting the use of one-time revenue to one-time expenditures, lawmakers said.

The budget now heads to Democratic Gov. Dan McKee, who is scheduled to sign it at noon Friday on the south steps of the Statehouse.

‘Today we are passing a responsible, balanced budget that helps Rhode Islanders now and positions our state for strong fiscal health in the future,’ Senate Finance Committee Chairman Louis P. DiPalma said.

DiPalma said the budget helps small businesses, preserves and expands important early childhood programs and supports a variety of initiatives to help tackle the state’s housing crisis while also protecting the state’s rainy day fund.

Lawmakers added $39 million from the original proposal to help address the state’s housing crisis, including $4 million for transit-oriented development and $4.3 million to support infrastructure needed for housing development, such as road and utility connections.

The House plan included a low-income housing tax credit program. The program would provide a tax incentive for developers to expand subsidized housing options for low-income households.

Lawmakers did not include a proposal submitted in the governor’s housing amendments authorizing eminent domain powers for the Department of Housing.

An amendment added when the House approved the bill last week added $7 million for early childhood programs from unspent federal funds.

‘This budget was carefully crafted so that our residents, particularly our most vulnerable, retain the supports and assistance that they and their families need, so that our businesses have the ability and opportunity to grow, and so that Rhode Island is situated to withstand a very possible financial downturn that will affect both our state and national economies,’ House Finance Committee Chairman Marvin Abney said in a written statement.

<!–>

–>

The Biden White House is taking flak from across the Republican presidential field over its controversial Pride event last weekend that included topless trans activists appearing in videos taken at the event.

On Tuesday, the Biden administration acknowledged that the behavior of the activists was over the line, but that hasn’t stymied the flow of criticism aimed at President Biden and the pro-trans policies being pushed by him and his fellow Democrats.

‘I’m livid and incensed by this White House, not only for the kids present at this event, but the message this sends to children across the country,’ Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital. ‘Biden’s disregard for commonsense and protocol is deeply troubling. This obscenity is never acceptable, let alone at the White House that belongs to the people.’

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley cited a 2020 quote from President Biden in reverence to the White House. ‘In the words of Joe Biden on Sept. 6, 2020, ‘We need to restore honor and decency to the White House.’ I couldn’t agree more. It’s time for Joe to go,’ she said.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez told Fox that although Biden had degraded the office of the presidency himself ‘through wrongheaded policies that have made America less safe and less prosperous,’ he ‘did the right thing’ by calling out the activists’ behavior.

‘This is the peoples’ house, and when I am President, respect and decorum to the home and the office of the presidency will be restored,’ Suarez said.

North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum told Fox, ‘Rather than hosting parties with inappropriate displays of nudity, President Biden should spend more time focused on fixing our economy, lowering energy prices, and protecting Americans from the Chinese Communist Party.’

‘This is yet another example of the radical left shoving trans propaganda in the face of the American people. In our schools, at the White House, where does it end?’ conservative radio host and former California gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder said. ‘The fact that this happened on White House grounds makes Biden look like the real boob.’

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy said the mishap was ‘very revealing about where we are as a nation.’  

‘When someone says they’re trans, it usually means something else is badly wrong in their life. Confirming the confusion isn’t compassion, it’s cruelty,’ Ramaswamy said. ‘Joe Biden is celebrating that cruelty.’ 

‘Let’s abandon the farce that the ‘humane’ thing to do is to affirm their confusion, rather than to actually help. It’s inhumane,’ he added.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis also ripped Biden over the occurrence during a press conference Thursday, telling those in attendance it was ‘inappropriate,’ and questioned why the administration would speak out against such behavior except for when it came to the curriculum of second-graders.

A bill that would require the replacement of lead pipes across Rhode Island was approved by the state’s House of Representatives..The bill would require Rhode Island water suppliers to create a service line inventory no later than October 16, 2024, to determine where the lead contamination is taking place.Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee will now decide whether the bill becomes law.

A bill that would require the replacement of lead pipes across Rhode Island over the next decade has been approved by state lawmakers.

The bill that passed the House on Thursday would create a lead water supply replacement program for both public and private service lines, with a requirement that all affected lines be replaced within 10 years. The Senate previously approved the bill.

Under the bill, financial assistance for lead pipe replacement would be provided through the Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank, including no-cost options for property owners. To help develop the state’s workforce, the legislation would set requirements for water suppliers and contractors to participate in apprenticeship programs.

The bill would require water suppliers to create a service line inventory no later than Oct. 16, 2024, to determine the existence or absence of lead within each water connection in its service area.

It would also establish new notification and reporting requirements for suppliers to ensure transparency in the identification and replacement of service lines containing lead.

The bill would also require a lead risk assessment be conducted for any home built before 2011 as part of any transaction involving the property. Currently, those assessments are required only for homes built prior to 1978.

‘No family should have to worry that their home’s water supply may be poisoning their children,’ Democratic Senate President Dominick Ruggerio said after the Senate approved the bill.

‘This legislation will provide new urgency, and much-needed additional resources, to this effort, helping us protect our children’s well-being and the health of all Rhode Islanders,’ he added.

The bill now heads to Gov. Dan McKee’s desk.

About 9.2 million lead pipes carry water into homes across the U.S., according to an Environmental Protection Agency survey that will dictate how billions of dollars to find and replace those pipes are spent.

The survey will be used to steer billions of dollars from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to water infrastructure upgrades in states that need it most. Previously, a state’s share of lead pipe funds was based on its general infrastructure need and didn’t consider how many lead pipes the state had.

The General Assembly has also approved a package of three bills aimed at reducing childhood exposure to lead poisoning by making sure landlords comply with lead-safety laws.

Lead can cause brain damage, and the EPA says no amount is safe for children’s bodies.

One of the bills would create a statewide rental registry where landlords who own non-exempt buildings built before 1978 would be required to file certificates already required by law showing that they had conformed to lead safety laws.

The second would let tenants pay their rent into an escrow account when there are unaddressed lead hazards in their homes. Tenants would have to remain current on their rent payments, but landlords wouldn’t be able to access the funds until they resolved the lead hazards.

A third bill would let families affected by childhood lead poisoning recover up to three times their actual damages if their landlord is found to have violated lead safety laws.

‘For more than 20 years, Rhode Island has had strong lead poisoning prevention laws on the books, and with the passage of these bills today, we will finally have the tools we need to enforce compliance with these laws,’ said Attorney General Peter Neronha, who pushed for the measures.

<!–>

–>

Minnesota’s Department of Education agreed to halt enforcement of an anti-religious school law as part of a federal court injunction, which religious liberty advocates say is a win for Christian education.

For two Christian colleges in Minnesota who were singled out by the law and sued the state, the Wednesday ruling marks a victory for religious liberty protections.

‘It’s not every day that a state asks a federal court to tie its hands to prevent it from enforcing its own anti-religious law—but Minnesota has done just that,’ said Diana Thomson, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed the lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Education. ‘As this effort to walk back demonstrates, the state didn’t do its homework before it passed this unconstitutional law. The next step is for the court to strike down this ban for good.’ 

The Minnesota legislature amended the eligibility requirements for schools who are part of a state-funded program offering college courses free of charge to high school students. An education finance law signed in May stipulated that participants in Minnesota’s Postsecondary Enrollment Options program (PSEO) ‘must not require a faith statement from a secondary student seeking to enroll in a postsecondary course,’ or base admissions decisions on religious beliefs, race, ethnicity, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

The law would have made it impossible for high school students to attend two Christian colleges in Minnesota — the University of Northwestern-St. Paul and Crown College, both of which joined the legal challenge to the law — once it took effect July 1.

Several parents and the two schools sued the state soon after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz signed the legislation. The injunction from U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel allows the colleges to continue offering on-campus courses under the PSEO program.

‘We are glad that Minnesota has agreed not to punish our children and many students like them for wanting to learn at schools that reflect their values,’ parents and plaintiffs Mark and Melinda Loe said. ‘They should be able to pursue the same great opportunities as all other students in the state without politicians in St. Paul getting in the way. We hope the court will eventually strike this law down for good and protect all religious students and the schools they want to attend.’ 

While the plaintiffs celebrated the ruling, the state asserted it would defend the new rule in the courts.

‘The Minnesota Department of Education believes no students should be discriminated against based on their religion. The new law is designed is to defend the rights and individual liberties of Minnesota students, and today’s action will allow for a thorough legal review of the statute as passed during the 2023 legislative session,’ said Kevin Burns, communications director for the Minnesota Department of Education. 

Attorneys for the parents and schools say the state’s agreement to the injunction is a good sign for the future disposition of the case.

‘I’ve been litigating for 14 years, I’ve never seen a government defendant agree to a preliminary injunction,’ Thomson told Fox News Digital. ‘That said, I think the law is pretty egregious.’ 

Recent Supreme Court rulings have held that ‘once a state opens funding to private institutions, the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause forbids excluding participants based on their religion,’ according to the Becket lawsuit.

‘This law pretty blatantly violates that, so I think they may have seen the writing on the wall,’ Thomson added.

Both Crown and Northwestern require statements of faith for on-campus students. Northwesterns’ undergraduate application form asks students if they have entrusted themselves to Jesus Christ, and asks if they agree that ‘the Bible alone is the final authority and standard in all matters of faith and personal conduct.’ 

Under the new law, Northwestern and Crown would be forced to choose between offering courses under the PSEO program or ‘give up their religious identity by abandoning faith-based requirements for on-campus admission,’ according to the lawsuit.

During a May 9 hearing in the Minnesota legislature, amid months of debate over the law, Democratic state Sen. Erin Maye Quade decried what she considered threats from the two Christian schools to take away options from ‘because organizations may not be able to require these faith statements,’ Maye Quade said.

As part of their biblical principles, Crown and Northwestern also state that marriage is between a man and a woman, and ask students to commit to moral behavior, which Maye Quade referenced in her defense of the law. 

‘[L]imiting the pool [of PSEO options] based on their specific faith and the specific tenets of that faith, or gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation — It’s just not OK,’ Maye Quade said.

If the law is enforced and the schools ceased to offer PSEO the effect would likely be fewer options for Minnesota students to take college courses, leading to greater competition at other institutions, Thomson said.

‘We are thankful that Crown can continue welcoming PSEO students who seek to join our Christian community and earn college credit without taking on debt. The law protects our current and future PSEO students’ ability to use PSEO funds at schools that reflect their beliefs and values,’ said Crown College president Andrew Denton.

Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Thursday appointed four new officials to the state’s Election Law Enforcement Commission.Murphy appointed two Democrats, Tom Prol and Norma Evans, and two Republicans, Ryan Peters and Jon-Henry Barr, to the commission. Prol will serve as its chairman.The new appointees’ enforcement roles remain unclear, but most of the commission’s oversight covers state spending, lobbying, and pay-to-play laws.

Exercising his power under a new campaign finance law, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy has appointed four new commissioners to the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency.

The bipartisan slate of new Election Law Enforcement Commission members include a former state bar association president — who was the group’s first openly gay leader — a one-time lawmaker, a former deputy attorney general and a local prosecutor.

It’s unclear what effect on enforcement the new appointments would have. The commission oversees campaign spending, lobbying and pay-to-play law in the state.

In a statement Thursday, Murphy said he named Tom Prol to be the chairman. A Democrat, Prol is an attorney who served as the New Jersey State Bar Association’s first openly gay president, the governor said.

Prol will serve a three-year term, along with Ryan Peters, a Republican former Assembly member also appointed on Thursday. The other two members, Democrat Norma Evans, who works in the office of the state attorney general and previously served as a deputy attorney general, and Republican Jon-Henry Barr, the municipal prosecutor in Clark, will serve two-year terms.

The 2023 legislation that Murphy signed made a host of changes, including increasing spending and contribution limits, overhauling pay-to-play laws and shortening how long the state’s election watchdog commission can investigate campaign finance violations.

Among the changes the measure made are increasing spending limits in a primary for governor to $7.3 million from $2.2 million, and to $15.6 million from $5 million in the general election, as well as boosting the limit on individual contributions to candidates and parties from $2,600 to $5,200.

It also retroactively shortened the statute of limitations for the state’s campaign finance watchdog — the Election Law Enforcement Commission — to investigate violations from 10 years to two years, temporarily permits the governor to make appointments to the commission without Senate approval and ends individual towns’ pay-to-play laws.

Among the worst loopholes contained in the legislation, according to critics, is the expansion of pay-to-play laws — rules aimed at limiting what companies that hold public contracts can contribute to political campaigns.

The bill would allow recipients of state government contracts to contribute to candidates for governor if they’re awarded through the ‘fair and open process.’ The bill says that the public entity awarding the contract determines what amounts to ‘fair and open.’

Murphy’s appointees fill all four vacancies currently on the commission.

<!–>

–>

Gov. Maura Healey recommended pardons for seven individuals Thursday, an unusual move for a Massachusetts governor just five months into her first term.

In recent decades, governors have typically waited until near the end of their time in office to make similar recommendations.

Healey, the state’s former attorney general, said the seven individuals had been fully vetted.

‘I believe deeply in our justice system and the important work of making it more fair and equitable for all of our residents,’ Healey said at the Statehouse. ‘Justice delayed can be justice denied.’

Healey said the seven had been convicted of crimes years ago at a young age, had accepted responsibility, and had spent decades abiding by the law. The crimes ranged from drug possession to assault to breaking and entering.

Healey said the past convictions have blocked the individuals from fully continuing on with their lives.

‘These men and women have been carrying the burden of convictions and dealing with the consequences far beyond their legal sentences,’ she said. ‘They deserve compassion and pardoning them is the right thing to do.’

The pardons must be approved by the eight-member Governor’s Council.

Healey said the administration is working to revise clemency guidelines — taking into account factors like racial disparities and brain development in young people — and added that clemency provides an opportunity to ‘soften the harshest edges’ of the criminal justice system.

One person recommended for a pardon is Glendon King. In 1992, at the age of 30, King was convicted of a number of drug charges. He had served in the U.S. Army and the Army National Guard and later joined the Boston Fire Department.

King said he succumbed to peer pressure in the events leading up to his conviction.

‘Unfortunately that was the wrong decision. I regret that up until this day,’ he said. ‘There’s the right way and the wrong way. I eventually took the wrong way for a short moment of time, but I got right back on track.’

Terrance Williams was convicted of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in 1984 after he got into an altercation at age 15 with a friend, who he said remains a friend. He’s worked at the Boston Water and Sewer Commission for the past three decades but has been denied a job at a private security company.

‘We were just horsing around in school,’ he said. ‘Here I am 39 years later getting a pardon.’

<!–>

–>

The Biden administration announced this week that it is extending protection from deportations to more than 330,000 immigrants from four countries who were shielded by temporary protected status (TPS) – although one top Democrat senator said the move ‘simply does not go far enough.’

The Department of Homeland Security announced that it is rescinding a move by the Trump administration to end TPS for nationals from El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal and Nicaragua and extending the protections for an additional 18 months. It is expected to shield about 337,000 immigrants, some will be here illegally or at risk of overstaying their visa.

TPS authority allows the Department of Homeland Security to protect nationals of designated countries living in the U.S. from potential deportation if they are eligible, allows them to apply for work permits and gives them the freedom to travel. TPS is based on three grounds: armed ongoing conflict, environmental disasters or ‘extraordinary and temporary conditions.’

There are currently 16 countries designated for TPS, many of them either designated or extended by the Biden administration. Critics of the administration on the right have decried the use of the authority as ‘amnesty-lite.’

‘Through the extension of Temporary Protected Status, we are able to offer continued safety and protection to current beneficiaries who are nationals of El Salvador, Honduras, Nepal, and Nicaragua who are already present in the United States and cannot return because of the impacts of environmental disasters,’ said DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement. ‘We will continue to offer support to them through this temporary form of humanitarian relief.’

However, despite the broad use of the authority by the Biden administration, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., criticized DHS for not going a step farther and excluding both Guatemala and Venezuela.

‘I am glad the Biden administration has reversed the Trump administration’s cruel and misguided decision to rescind TPS designations for El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Nepal,’ he said. However, this decision simply does not go far enough.’

CBS News reported this week that some top administration officials opposed expanding TPS, citing concerns about it potentially leading to an increase in illegal immigration at the southern border.

In a statement, Menendez said he was concerned that the decision ‘may have been driven in part by political calculations instead of sound policy rationale and the conditions in each country.’

He called on the administration to ‘more aggressively leverage’ its authority on TPS to address ‘long-standing challenges of our immigration system.’

The Biden administration has called for a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants – including TPS recipients. Menendez led the Senate push for legislation that included such an amnesty in 2021, but it failed after failing to pick up Republican support in the upper chamber.

Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was fined nearly $475,000 on Thursday for misusing city resources during his 2020 presidential campaign.

New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board (COIB) penalized de Blasio for having the city pay for his NYPD security detail’s travel costs to and from campaign events in 2019. Expenses included lodging, car rentals, airfare and meals.

De Blasio was ordered to reimburse the city nearly $320,000, in addition to a separate $155,000 fine. According to The New York Times, it’s the largest fine the board has issued in its history, in addition to being the strictest penalty. 

The former mayor threw his hat in the ring during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season, running a campaign from May 2019 to September 2019. He dropped out of the race after polling poorly. 

In the early stages of de Blasio’s campaign, the COIB had informed him that while the city could pay the officers’ salaries and overtime costs, it would be a ‘misuse of city resources’ to cover the travel bill.

According to documents obtained by Fox News, the COIB claims that the NYPD security detail incurred $319,794.20 during 31 presidential campaign-related trips. He was fined $5,000 for each out-of-state trip, totaling $155,000.

‘Although there is a City purpose in the City paying for an NYPD security detail for the City’s Mayor, including the security detail’s salary and overtime, there is no City purpose in paying for the extra expenses incurred by that NYPD security detail to travel at a distance from the City to accompany the Mayor or his family on trips for his campaign for President of the United States,’ the board determined.

In response, de Blasio tweeted out a statement from his lawyers that argued that the COIB’s ruling violated the Constitution.

‘In a time of unprecedented threats of political violence, the COIB’s reckless and arbitrary ruling threatens the safety and security of our democratically-elected public servants,’ the statement from attorney Andrew G. Celli, Jr. read.

‘With today’s decision, the COIB has broken with decades of NYPD policy and precedent, ignored the professional expertise of the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, and violated the Constitution to boot,’ the press release read, adding that mayors are entitled to protection.

–>

Democrats in the House and Senate on Thursday introduced a bill that would give immigrants immediate access to a range of federal benefits instead of making them wait five years.

Congress passed legislation in 1996 requiring most immigrants to wait five years after obtaining their official immigration status before they can access Medicaid, food stamps and other federal programs. That requirement was passed as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which the House and Senate passed by 3-to-1 margins and President Bill Clinton signed into law.

But under the bill from Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and Tony Cardenas, D-Calif., and Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, that five-year waiting period would no longer apply. Democrats said the ‘arbitrary’ five-year waiting period makes it harder for immigrants to obtain ‘critical benefits and services.’

‘As an immigrant who came to this country alone at the age of 16, I’m proud to be leading this legislation to finally eliminate cruel, xenophobic, and unreasonable barriers to health care, nutrition assistance, and other life-changing public benefits,’ Jayapal said in a statement about her bill, the LIFT the BAR Act. ‘Immigrants and families should not have to wait to access these basic services.’

‘For more than 25 years, unjust policies have prevented millions of lawfully present immigrants from accessing critical services and programs, including quality health care, food and housing assistance, economic support, and more,’ added Hirono.

Democrats said that by next year, non-elderly immigrants will be about 8% of the total U.S. population, but will make up nearly a third of the non-elderly uninsured population. Cardenas said immigrant families need immediate access to federal benefits in order to ‘survive and thrive.’

The bill was proposed in the midst of what Republicans say is an immigration crisis, as millions of migrants continue to cross into the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans have said these unchecked migrants are leading not only to a drain on federal resources but are a means of drug trafficking and other problems, and say President Biden’s non-enforcement of U.S. immigration laws is attracting more.

Groups that support the Democrat bill, however, say ending the five-year wait for federal benefits is needed to ensure these migrants succeed in America.

‘Removing arbitrary barriers to health, nutritional support, housing assistance and other important public programs would bring us closer to a society in which all of us have the freedom to thrive,’ said Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center.

‘Passing the LIFT the BAR Act is an essential step toward race equity, and a quarter-century is more than long enough to wait for justice,’ added Adriana Cadena, director of Protecting Immigrant Families. ‘House Democrats must make this bill a priority in 2023.’

A proposal to regulate wedding barns in Wisconsin as part of an overhaul of the state’s liquor laws won bipartisan support Thursday, advancing as the Republican-controlled Legislature moves swiftly to enact the sweeping bill.

An Assembly committee voted 12-2 to pass the measure just two days after a public hearing at which owners of wedding barns across the state said the proposed changes would put them out of business. The bill, which has been years in the making, was brought by Republican legislative leaders and agreed to by stakeholders with a wide array of interests. It affects every level of the state’s alcohol industry — governing the licensing, producing, selling and distribution of beer, wine and liquor.

The bill also attempts to resolve questions about primarily rural facilities that host weddings and other events where alcohol is served. The facilities, which have grown in popularity in recent years and operated in a legal gray area, currently do not need a liquor license to operate.

Under the bill, wedding barns that host more than six events a year would have to obtain a Class B liquor license, which would allow them to serve beer, wine and liquor.

Lawmakers on the Assembly’s state affairs committee on Thursday dismissed concerns brought by some wedding barn owners that the requirements were too onerous.

‘This bill is not going to put anyone out of business,’ said Republican Rep. Michael Schraa. ‘They just have to change their business model a little bit.’

Committee chair, Republican Rep. Rob Swearingen, said wedding barns were the ‘wild west’ and needed to be regulated in the name of public safety.

‘We’re talking about beverage: alcohol,’ he said. ‘We’re not talking about chocolate milk.’

Democratic Rep. Tod Ohnstad, one of three Democrats who joined all nine Republicans in voting to pass the bill, said it attempts to level the playing field for banquet halls, taverns and others who must get liquor licenses to operate and wedding barns, which don’t need a license.

The Legislature was expected to pass it on Wednesday, which would then send it to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. His spokesperson did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the measure. Evers’ administration was involved with the drafting of the bill.

Wedding barns are just one small part of the proposal that makes changes to the state’s so-called three-tier system, created in the 1930s. The three-tier system refers to alcohol suppliers, distributors and retailers. The system, designed to prevent monopolies, has been eyed for changes for years, but policymakers and the alcohol industry have been unable to reach agreement.

This year though, the measure has broad support from some of the nation’s largest alcohol sellers to some of the state’s best-known smaller craft breweries. Distributors and retailers are also on board, leaving wedding barn owners as the most prominent opponent.

In one of the biggest changes, the bill would create a new division in the state Department of Revenue to oversee and enforce liquor laws. It would also allow for expanded hours at wineries, permit brew pubs to operate stand-alone retail stores and create a new statewide bartender license.

Supporters include Anheuser-Busch Companies, Kwik Trip, Molson Coors Brewing Co., New Glarus Brewing Company, the Wisconsin Craft Beverage Coalition, the Wisconsin Grocers Association and the Wisconsin Wine and Spirit Institute.

<!–>

–>