WASHINGTON — Congress returns to Washington, D.C., this week following an uneventful August recess where little to no progress was made on government funding, even though lawmakers have just weeks left until their shutdown deadline.

Republican leaders will need the support of several Democratic senators to approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1, since lawmakers have once again failed to complete the dozen full-year bills on time.

But what was once a routine bipartisan exercise has taken on heightened stakes, with Democrats and some Republicans increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s unilateral spending decisions.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued several reports faulting the Trump administration for impounding, or refusing to spend funds approved by Congress, in violation of the law. And dozens of lawsuits have been filed, alleging the administration has acted to supersede Congress’ power of the purse.

The ongoing tension, combined with party leaders’ increasing focus on next year’s midterm elections, makes the possibility of a shutdown higher than it has been for years.

President Donald Trump said in mid-August he was open to meeting with Democratic leaders once they were back in town to negotiate a government funding deal but minimized the importance of talks.

“Well, I will, I guess, but it’s almost a waste of time to meet because they never approve anything,” Trump said.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released a letter last week urging Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune to quickly begin negotiating a bipartisan stopgap bill.

“The government funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan way,” they wrote. “That is the only viable path forward.”

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said last week that she wants to keep advancing the full-year spending bills, but that a short-term stopgap would be necessary to give lawmakers enough time.

“We need to avoid a government shutdown, which would be horrendous if that were to occur on October 1,” Collins said, according to remarks provided by her office. “And we also need to avoid having a continuing resolution, by that I mean a stopgap bill that just puts government on automatic pilot for the whole year.

“We’re going to have to have a short-term continuing resolution, but we’re making really good progress with overwhelming bipartisan support, and I hope that will continue.”

Another failure

Congress is supposed to complete work on the dozen annual appropriations bills before the start of the new fiscal year but has failed to do so for decades. This year is no different.

The House and Senate are nowhere near finishing their work on the bills, which provide funding for dozens of departments, including Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, State, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

The bills, which make up about one-third of federal spending, also fund smaller agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and the National Weather Service.

The House has approved two of the dozen bills — Defense and Military Construction-VA. The Senate has passed its Agriculture, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA bills.

The House bills have only been supported by GOP lawmakers, while the Senate’s bills are broadly bipartisan, giving that chamber an upper hand if the two chambers begin conferencing full-year bills later this year.

Without a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on how much to spend on all of the bills, it’s highly unlikely Congress will be able to complete its work before the Oct. 1 deadline.

Leaders will instead need to reach agreement on a stopgap spending bill that essentially keeps government funding on autopilot until lawmakers can work out a final deal on the full-year bills.

The calendar doesn’t give Speaker Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Thune, R-S.D., much time to find compromise with their Democratic counterparts.

Both chambers are in session for three weeks at the beginning of September before breaking for Rosh Hashanah. They’ll return to Capitol Hill on Sept. 29 with less than two days to fund the government or begin a partial shutdown.

Thune said in mid-August at the Greater Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce Inside Washington luncheon that he expects lawmakers will “have a big fight at the end of September.”

Last shutdown stretched 35 days

It’s been almost seven years since some federal departments and agencies had to navigate a shutdown, when Congress and the first Trump administration were unable to broker a funding deal before a deadline.

A shutdown this year would have substantially more impact than that 35-day debacle since, when that funding lapse began, Congress had approved the Defense, Energy-Water, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and Military Construction-VA spending bills.

The departments and agencies funded by those laws, including Congress, weren’t affected by the shutdown.

Lawmakers have failed to send any of the full-year bills to Trump so far this year, so every department and agency would need to implement a shutdown plan if Congress doesn’t approve a stopgap spending bill before Oct. 1.

Federal employees who deal with the preservation of life and property as well as national security will likely be deemed exempt and work without pay until the shutdown ends.

Workers who are not considered essential to the federal government’s operations would be furloughed until Congress and the president broker some sort of funding deal.

Both categories of employees receive back pay once the lapse ends, though that doesn’t extend to federal contractors.

On to the stopgap

Congress regularly approves a stopgap spending bill in September to gain more time to complete negotiations on the full-year appropriations bills.

That continuing resolution, as it’s sometimes called, usually lasts until the last Friday in December when both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be in Washington, D.C.

So a September stopgap would likely last until Friday, Dec. 19, assuming the House and Senate can reach an agreement and hold floor votes in the weeks ahead.

Last year, in the lead-up to the presidential election, lawmakers approved a stopgap bill in September that funded the government through mid-December.

Following the Republican sweep of the November elections, GOP leaders opted not to negotiate the full-year bills and used a second stopgap bill to fund the government until March after a raucous 48 hours on Capitol Hill.

Speaker Johnson took a go-it-alone approach on a third stopgap spending bill, leaving Democrats completely out of the negotiations and jamming the Senate with the legislation.

Schumer and several Democrats ultimately helped Republicans get past the 60-vote legislative filibuster, but most voted against actually passing the stopgap.

The dilemma over forcing a shutdown or helping Republicans pass a stopgap bill will resurface for Schumer in the weeks ahead as he tries to navigate another shutdown deadline amid unified GOP control of Washington.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s request to claw back $9.4 billion in previously approved spending on foreign aid and public media ran into significant opposition Wednesday, potentially dooming its path forward in the Senate.

Numerous GOP lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee, including Chairwoman Susan Collins, expressed concern at how the proposed rescissions would affect American “soft power” as well as local radio and television stations that rely on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — many in rural America.

Collins, R-Maine, highlighted opposition to cutting already approved funding for CPB, which goes toward National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service and hundreds of local stations outside the nation’s larger metropolitan areas.

“The vast majority of this funding, more than 70%, actually flows to local television and radio stations,” Collins said. “In Maine this funding supports everything from emergency communications in rural areas to coverage of high school basketball championships and a locally produced high school quiz show. Nationally produced television programs such as ‘Antiques Roadshow,’ ‘Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood,’ are also enjoyed by many throughout our country.”

Collins said she understands objections to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting providing funding to national NPR operations, given what she called its “discernibly partisan bent.”

“There are, however, more targeted approaches to addressing that bias at NPR than rescinding all of the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Collins said.

Effect on Alaska

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski appeared to signal she also opposes cancelling funding that Congress previously approved for public media and told White House budget director Russ Vought that she wanted him to understand the ramifications on her home state.

“I hope you feel the urgency that I’m trying to express on behalf of people in rural Alaska, and I think in many parts of rural America, where this is their lifeline, this is where they get the updates on that landslide, this is where they get the updates on the wildfires that are coming their way,” Murkowski said.

“And so how they will be able to not only get the emergency alerts that they need, but also the weather reporting to make sure that fishermen … can go out safely. So that these communities can be connected when a deadly landslide has come through,” she said.

Rural radio in South Dakota, Nebraska

South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds pressed Vought to ensure uninterrupted federal funding to local radio stations in rural areas of his home state, even if Congress rescinds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s appropriation.

“First of all, we have Native American radio stations in South Dakota. They get their funding through NPR – 90 some percent of what they use. They will not continue to exist if we don’t find a way to take care of their needs,” Rounds said. “It’s not a large amount of money, but would you be willing to work with us to try and find a way for these places where, literally, they’re not political in nature?

“These are the folks that put out the emergency notifications. They talk about community events and so forth. But they’re in very, very rural areas where there simply isn’t an economy to support buying advertising on these stations.”

Vought appeared to agree to work with Rounds, before saying that if Congress approves the rescissions request for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the administration wouldn’t pull back funding until the next fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1.

Vought also pledged to work with Nebraska Republican Sen. Deb Fischer to ensure people in rural areas will have a way to learn about emergency alerts if the rescissions request is approved.

“I am very concerned also about the emergency alerts that come to many places in Nebraska only through that rural radio,” Fischer said. “We’re a state of vastness, very sparsely populated areas that don’t receive cell service in many cases. It’s difficult even with landlines in many areas of my state.”

Reductions to AIDS relief

Chairwoman Collins also said during the nearly three-hour hearing that cutting funding on certain global health programs, including the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, “would be extraordinarily ill-advised and short-sighted.”

“PEPFAR has saved more than 26 million lives and enabled 7.8 million babies to be born HIV-free to mothers living with HIV,” Collins said. “This program remains a bipartisan priority of Congress. After years of commitment and stable investment the finish line is in sight. The United States has the tools to fulfill PEPFAR’s mission and get the job done while transitioning HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention to country ownership by the year 2030.”

Collins argued that the Trump administration is unlikely to spend foreign aid dollars on the same “questionable projects” that were part of the Biden administration.

“Unless the current administration plans to continue these controversial projects that it has identified — which I very much doubt — those projects alone cannot be used to justify the proposed rescissions,” Collins said.

Just before Vought began giving his opening statement to the committee, a group of protesters in the room stood up and began to yell in an attempt to preserve PEPFAR funding. They were escorted out by U.S. Capitol Police.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, chairman of the Defense spending subcommittee and former majority leader, appeared to reject some of the proposed foreign aid cuts, arguing they eroded American influence around the world.

“There’s plenty of absolute nonsense masquerading with American aid that shouldn’t receive another bit of taxpayer funding. But the administration’s attempt to root it out has been unnecessarily chaotic,” McConnell said.

“In critical corners of the globe, instead of creating efficiencies, you’ve created vacuums for adversaries like China to fill. Responsible investments in soft power prevent conflict, preserve American influence and save countless lives at the same time. So if we’re concerned about spending, and we should be, it’s important to remember what wars cost.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, however, announced that he will vote for the rescissions package, arguing that some ways the Biden administration spent funds in the PEPFAR account deserved rebuke.

“No more preaching to me. I’m going to vote for this package. And do you know why I’m going to vote for this package? Just as a statement that PEPFAR is important but it’s not beyond scrutiny,” Graham said. “That how you run the government has consequences. Don’t lecture me about being mean or cruel.”

How rescissions work

The Trump administration sent Congress the $9.4 billion rescissions request in early June, allowing the White House budget office to legally freeze funding for the various programs included in the proposal for 45 days while lawmakers decide whether to approve or reject it.

The request called on lawmakers to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting during the next two fiscal years, a total of $1.1 billion in previously approved spending.

It proposed more than $8 billion in cuts to numerous foreign aid accounts run by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, including health programs, initiatives that promote democracy, economic development, peacekeeping activities and refugee assistance.

One of the rescissions proposed lawmakers claw back $500 million of the $4 billion that Congress previously approved for “activities related to child and maternal health, HIV/ AIDS, and infectious diseases.

“This proposal would not reduce treatment but would eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like ‘family planning’ and ‘reproductive health,’ LGBTQI+ activities, and ‘equity’ programs.”

The House voted mostly along party lines in June to approve the request in full, sending it to the Senate, where it has been on the sidelines for weeks as Republicans instead work toward an agreement on the party’s “big, beautiful bill.”

The rescissions bill isn’t subject to the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so it only needs the support of 50 Republicans and Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote to become law. That, however, must happen before the 45-day clock runs out on July 18.

If Senate leaders do not schedule a floor vote, or that vote does not get the necessary support, the Trump administration would have to spend the funding as previously planned. And the White House budget office would be blocked from sending up a rescissions request for the same accounts for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s time in office.

Senate floor consideration also comes with unlimited amendment debate, giving senators from both parties the chance to call for votes on whether to keep or eliminate each proposed rescission.

Any changes to the bill would require it to go back across the Capitol for a final vote in the House before the deadline.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress from both political parties are calling on the Trump administration to unfreeze funding for a grant program that helps local communities better prepare for natural disasters.

The letter from more than 80 lawmakers urges the Federal Emergency Management Agency to begin spending money already approved by Congress for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program.

“The BRIC program was established by Congress in the 2018 Disaster Recovery Reform Act and signed into law by President (Donald) Trump with bipartisan support,” the two-page letter states. “In the years since, this program has catalyzed community investments in resilient infrastructure, saving federal funds by investing in community preparedness before a disaster strikes.”

The lawmakers wrote that BRIC grant funds go to a variety of projects and that the program has played “an essential role in helping Tribal Nations and rural communities strengthen their defenses against natural disasters and safeguard critical infrastructure.”

“Through BRIC, Tribes and rural communities can access dedicated funding to strengthen community resilience by investing in hazard mitigation projects—such as flood protection, fire prevention, and infrastructure hardening—that are otherwise difficult to finance in rural or remote settings,” the lawmakers wrote.

While the program “has room for improvement,” the lawmakers wrote that FEMA and Congress should work together “to improve the application review and funding distribution process to more effectively reduce the costs disasters pose to our communities, economies, and livelihoods.”

Maryland Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen, North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray and Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski led drafting the letter in their chamber.

Reps. Chuck Edwards, R-N.C.; Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas; Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa.; and Ed Case, D-Hawaii, spearheaded efforts in the House.

‘Beyond reckless’

FEMA announced in early April that it would unilaterally cancel all BRIC funding approved from fiscal years 2020 through 2023, calling the program “wasteful and ineffective” in a statement.

“Approximately $882 million of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act will be returned to the U.S. Treasury or reapportioned by Congress in the next fiscal year,” a FEMA spokesperson wrote in the statement. “The 2021 law made $1 billion available for BRIC over five years, $133 million to date has been provided for about 450 applications. FEMA estimates more than $3.6 billion will remain in the Disaster Relief Fund to assist with disaster response and recovery for communities and survivors.”

The National Association of Counties wrote in a post about the cancellation that community leaders may “need to halt work or seek new funding sources” and “delay or scale back infrastructure investments.”

“Without access to BRIC’s federal match, counties may find it more difficult to pursue large-scale mitigation projects,” the NaCo post stated.

Association of State Floodplain Managers Executive Director Chad Berginnis wrote that dismantling the country’s “largest pre-disaster mitigation program is beyond reckless.”

“Cutting funding from projects already underway will leave states and communities scrambling, increasing disaster risk to families and businesses instead of reducing it,” Berginnis wrote. “The impact of this decision will be felt for decades to come.”

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com.

WASHINGTON — The Social Security Administration, tasked with running the program relied on by more than 73 million Americans, has begun to reorganize and slash staff, leading to major concerns among Democrats in Congress.

“The American people should realize the Social Security Administration is already at its lowest level of staffing in 50 years,” Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said during a press conference. “That’s why fewer than 40% of people who call to talk to a Social Security agent get through to talk to someone. That’s why it takes, on average, 240 days to process a disability claim. And that’s why last year an estimated 30,000 Americans died while waiting on a decision about their disability benefits.”

The Social Security Administration announced last week that it would “soon implement agency-wide organizational restructuring that will include significant workforce reductions.”

“Through these massive reorganizations, offices that perform functions not mandated by statute may be prioritized for reduction-in-force actions that could include abolishment of organizations and positions, directed reassignments, and reductions in staffing,” the SSA wrote in a press release.

A separate statement said the Social Security Administration would seek to lower the number of its employees from 57,000 to 50,000. That press release also said it is “no longer sustainable” for the SAA to operate 10 regional offices and that it will reduce that to four.

And Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek announced Monday the administration would cut $800 million from its budget during the current fiscal year.

A substantial portion of that total, $550 million, will come from freezing SSA and Disability Determination Services hiring and “drastically” reducing overtime within that division. Another $150 million in cost-cutting would come from cancelling Information Technology Systems contracts. And $103.5 million would come from closing down office space, according to a press release.

The plans follow Social Security Acting Commissioner Michelle King resigning in mid-February after refusing to allow Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service access to the private information the agency holds on Americans, according to multiple news reports.

Retired workers, people with disabilities

Social Security, established in August 1935, provided more than 73 million Americans with direct payments in January, according to data from the agency.

Retired workers and their dependents make up 78.5% of those beneficiaries, while workers with disabilities and their dependents make up 10.5% and survivors of deceased workers make up 11%, according to a fact sheet from the administration.

The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be able to keep paying claims in full until 2033, at which point “the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits,” according to the latest trustees report.

Congress must intervene before then if lawmakers want to avoid a 21% cut to benefits, which would likely increase over time.

President Donald Trump has said repeatedly that Republicans will not “touch” Social Security, though Musk, a special government employee and close friend of his, said on a podcast posted late last week that he believes Social Security is “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

According to the Securities and Exchange Commission: “A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.”

Getting on the phone with Social Security

Democrats said during their press conference on Capitol Hill on Monday that the staff cuts could impact how successfully the program is administered and rebuked Musk for the Ponzi remark.

Murray said part of the commitment that goes along with Social Security benefits is “being able to get on the phone with an actual human being without having to wait on hold for an hour or more” and “being able to visit an in-office person to help you get your benefits without having to jump through hoops or drive hundreds of miles.”

“But Trump and Elon are decimating the Social Security Administration,” Murray said. “And without adequate staff at the agency, there will be people who cannot get their benefits.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the Finance Committee, said he believes the staff cuts at the Social Security Administration are “a first step on the path to privatizing Social Security.”

Wyden said he was concerned the staffing cuts would lead to delays in getting benefit checks to people who rely on the program.

“Once they’ve broken it, DOGE and the billionaire allies are going to swoop in and hand Social Security over to the well-heeled contractors in Wall Street,” Wyden said. “Elon Musk is new to politics, but he gave the game away when, as my colleagues said, he called Social Security a Ponzi scheme.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said that many seniors prefer to talk to an actual person when they have questions about enrolling in the program or with their Social Security benefits.

“We all know this and you probably know this from your own parents or grandparents. They rely on being able to talk to people. They bring in the papers they get in the mail, or some email they got,” Klobuchar said. “And there can be a lot of confusion for anyone in dealing with it.”

Last updated 5:59 p.m., Mar. 3, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday it plans to spend up to $1 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation funds to try to reduce the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza in poultry.

The virus, also known as bird flu or H5N1, has disrupted the work of poultry farmers for years and began infecting dairy herds last year. But a recent spike in egg prices has led to renewed public attention to the disease.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the new five-point plan would implement increased biosecurity measures for poultry farms to help reduce interactions between domestic flocks and wild birds, provide funding for farmers to quickly repopulate after having to cull infected flocks, remove some regulations, import eggs from other countries and research a vaccine.

Rollins said she was “confident” that the firing of probationary federal employees and efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce wouldn’t negatively affect USDA.

“As we look to streamline and make more efficient the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will we have the resources needed to address the plan I just laid out?” she said. “We are convinced that we will, as we realign and evaluate where USDA has been spending money, where our employees are spending their time.”

The USDA scrambled earlier this month to rehire employees working on H5N1 issues, who were fired as part of government efficiency moves.

Bird flu vaccine

Rollins was lukewarm on the idea of using a vaccine to address bird flu, saying she believes the issue needs further research before the United States would potentially begin vaccinating poultry against H5N1.

“We got a lot of feedback from those who think that’s the immediate solution, and that we should be doing it,” Rollins said.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins speaks during her Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee confirmation hearing on Jan. 23, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

But after she “really dug in” and spoke with officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health and veterinarians, Rollins said she concluded there needs to be more research.

“A lot of the feedback I got was, as I mentioned, that it could be a solution,” Rollins said. “But to push that out now and require it — we’re just not ready, we don’t have enough information and we need to fully understand how it will affect the food supply.”

Details from USDA

Kailee Tkacz Buller, chief of staff at USDA, said on a call with reporters that up to $500 million of the $1 billion total investment would go toward helping farmers bolster their biosecurity measures.

The USDA plans to begin that work with egg-laying hens before expanding to other poultry farms and will cover 75% of the costs of upgrading farms with best practices, she said.

Rosemary Sifford, deputy administrator of veterinary services and chief veterinary officer at USDA’s Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, said on the call that the agency will help coordinate biosecurity audits for flocks that have been affected by H5N1 as well as flocks that haven’t contracted the virus.

USDA will then work with the farmers to cover that 75% share of fixing the highest risks to the poultry flocks, Sifford said.

Buller said up to $400 million of the $1 billion in Commodity Credit Corporation funds would go toward helping farmers repopulate their farms quickly with an indemnity rate “based on fair market value.”

The final pot of funding, up to $100 million, would go toward research into vaccines and therapeutics for poultry.

“We’re going to make sure that we work to limit any impact on export trade markets, if there ever were vaccinations rolled out,” Buller said.

Egg imports

USDA officials, speaking on background during the call with reporters, said that in addition to trying to find a vaccine for bird flu and helping farmers with biosecurity measures, the department is working to bolster egg imports.

One of the USDA officials said they were laying the groundwork to increase the number of eggs coming from the nation of Türkiye from about 70 million to 420 million annually.

The official didn’t provide many details about the arrangement other than to say it will last until egg prices within the United States go down and that the USDA would not subsidize any private purchases.

An official declined to answer a question about whether that would mean no tariffs on eggs coming into the country.

“This is just an opportunity for us to have the conversation,” the official said. “So we’ll continue to have those discussions.”

Last updated 5:00 p.m., Feb. 26, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate Budget Committee chairman warned Tuesday that immigration and border security funding is running low, and urged House Republicans to go along with a plan that would provide hundreds of billions in spending before Congress takes up changes to tax laws later this year.

Sen. Lindsey Graham said following a closed-door briefing with border czar Tom Homan and White House budget director Russ Vought that the two “begged” lawmakers to quickly provide more funding for border security.

The South Carolina Republican said that instead of taking the time to negotiate agreement among GOP lawmakers on a massive package that would include border security, energy policy, defense funding and tax law, Congress should instead pass three of those initiatives now and leave the debate on taxes until later.

“I still want one, big, beautiful bill, but I cannot — after hearing what I heard today — not act,” Graham said. “After that briefing, if the Republican Party cannot provide the money to the Trump administration to do all the things they need to do to make us safe, we have nobody to blame but ourselves, because we have the ability through reconciliation to do this. And I just want to do this sooner rather than later.”

Vought told senators in the private meeting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement is quickly running out of money, Graham said.

Republicans in Congress have been debating since after the elections whether to move the major policy changes through one or two bills. And while that would normally be an inside-the-beltway discussion, the House and Senate must get on the same page if they want to use the reconciliation process.

Otherwise the GOP will have to negotiate with Democrats or scrap their proposals altogether.

A first step

The first step in the arduous process requires the House and Senate agree on a budget resolution that includes reconciliation instructions for all the committees that will take part in drafting the package.

Graham released the Senate’s budget resolution last week. The committee plans to mark it up on Wednesday and Thursday, before voting to send the proposal to the Senate floor.

The House Budget Committee is set to debate and vote on its own budget later this week, though the panel had yet to release the resolution as of Tuesday afternoon.

Normally, the House and Senate could draft their separate bills however they want and then go to conference to work out the differences. But because GOP leaders want to use the complicated, strict budget reconciliation process to enact their changes, they need to agree on whether it will be one bill or two in the budget resolution.

Graham’s budget resolution would set up Congress to first pass a bill providing hundreds of billions of dollars for the Pentagon and Homeland Security Department as well as some energy policies.

The House budget resolution is expected to include reconciliation instructions that would move all of the core policy goals — border security, defense, energy and tax — within one package.

House and Senate Republicans failing to agree to a budget resolution that has one set of reconciliation instructions would mean they cannot use that process to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster and therefore couldn’t get any of their bills to President Donald Trump’s desk.

Graham said during the press conference that he still hopes Congress can pass one big package, but that he believes lawmakers must get ICE, Customs and Border Protection and the Defense Department the funding they say they need as soon as possible.

“All I can tell my House colleagues: Whatever you need to do to get to one, beautiful bill, do it, do it now, you have my blessing, you have my support,” Graham said. “But if we can’t do it quickly, we need to go to Plan B.”

Graham said Senate Republicans have made a commitment to pay for the total cost of the border security-defense-energy reconciliation package by “taking money away from other parts of the government that are less worthy.”

“We’re going to spend the money in four years. That will be enough to enact the Trump immigration agenda on the security side for the entire four years and we’re going to pay for it in four years,” Graham said.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said he views his chamber’s work on the budget resolution as “complementary with the House.”

“Now granted, they are on a different track, but that’s why we have this process,” Thune said. “We will figure out how to get to the finish line and the one thing that we’re all interested in and concerned about is unlocking this process, getting started and getting an outcome.”

Committees split up funding

Graham’s budget resolution would give the Armed Services Committee about $150 billion in funding, while Commerce, Science and Transportation would be able to spend $20 billion; Environment and Public Works would have a topline of $1 billion; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would receive a funding level of $175 billion; and Judiciary would have a spending allocation of $175 billion.

The funding GOP lawmakers plan to put in their reconciliation bills would be in addition to the funds that Congress provides in the dozen annual appropriations bills.

Congress approved $61.8 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Homeland Security and $825 billion for the Department of Defense in the last full-year spending bills that lawmakers passed in March 2024.

The DHS spending level was broken down among several agencies, including ICE, which received $9.6 billion, and CBP, which got $19.6 billion. Those funding levels were $1.1 billion and $3.2 billion more than the previous year’s levels, respectively, according to a summary from House Republicans.

Congress was supposed to pass the latest round of annual spending bills before the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year, but decided instead to rely on two stopgap spending bills to extend those funding laws through March 14.

More officers, detention space

Homan, whom Trump tapped to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations, has acknowledged that funding from Congress is key for immigration enforcement, from the hiring of more officers to additional detention space.

Enacting mass removals of millions of people in the country without proper legal status is resource heavy. ICE has a staff of 21,000 personnel, with 7,700 officers dedicated to removal and enforcement operations.

Another issue is detention space. ICE is funded to hold about 41,500 detention beds. ICE has started issuing requests for information on increasing detention capacity, according to government contracting data.

Additionally, the president has directed the Department of Defense to start holding up to 30,000 migrants at Guantanamo Bay.

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

Last updated 6:51 p.m., Feb. 11, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — Research universities and medical schools are grappling with how to implement a major change in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health that they warn could curtail breakthroughs or halt projects altogether, and that a senior Democrat in Congress called “nothing short of catastrophic.”

The NIH announced Friday that it would cap “Facilities and Administrative” costs at 15%, a significant reduction for many institutions that use grants from the federal agency to conduct research into some of the more daunting health diagnoses, like Alzheimer’s and cancer.

The NIH said the policy change regarding so-called “indirect costs” is intended to align how much the federal government spends on those items with how much certain private organizations that provide research grants allocate.

The change in policy is already subject to a lawsuit, with attorneys general from 22 states filing suit on Monday to prevent it from going into effect.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, is also looking to halt its implementation.

“This morning, I called Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, to express my strong opposition to these arbitrary cuts in funding for vital research at our Maine institutions, which are known for their excellence,” Collins wrote in a statement. “He has promised that as soon as he is confirmed, he will re-examine this initiative that was implemented prior to his confirmation.”

The NIH, based in Bethesda, Maryland, writes on its website that it provides about “50,000 competitive grants to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools, and other research institutions in every state.”

Medical colleges warn lights in labs will go out

The court case follows universities and medical schools saying the change would harm research into all types of diseases and lawmakers alleging it is illegal.

Association of American Medical Colleges President David J. Skorton and Chief Scientific Officer Elena Fuentes-Afflick wrote in a joint statement the 15% cap “will diminish the nation’s research capacity, slowing scientific progress and depriving patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics, and preventative interventions.”

Facilities and Administrative costs, they wrote, “include physical lab operations and maintenance, security, data processing and storage, and daily operations of critical research infrastructure.”

“Make no mistake. This announcement will mean less research,” they wrote. “Lights in labs nationwide will literally go out. Researchers and staff will lose their jobs.

“As a result, Americans will have to wait longer for cures and our country will cede scientific breakthroughs to foreign competitors. These are real consequences – slower scientific progress, longer waits for cures, fewer jobs.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges includes 173 accredited medical schools within the U.S. and Canada.

Imperiling U.S. as world leader in innovation

Association of Public and Land Grant Universities President Mark Becker wrote in a statement that “NIH slashing the reimbursement of research costs will slow and limit medical breakthroughs that cure cancer and address chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.”

“At public universities across the country, NIH-funded researchers are working tirelessly toward breakthroughs in treating debilitating diseases and discovering cures to deadly illnesses,” Becker wrote. “Cuts to reimbursement of these costs are cuts to medical research and represent the federal government stepping back from commitments it has made to world-leading researchers. This action will slow advances for millions of patients who desperately need critical breakthroughs and imperil the U.S.’s position as the world leader in biomedical innovation.”

APLU includes 250 public research universities, land-grant institutions and state university systems throughout the country that manage $61 billion in university-based research.

Association of American Universities President Barbara R. Snyder wrote in a statement that “Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs — also referred to as ‘indirect costs’ — are real and necessary costs of conducting the groundbreaking research that has led to countless breakthroughs in the past decades.”

“A cut to F&A reimbursements for NIH grants is quite simply a cut to the life-saving medical research that helps countless American families,” Snyder wrote.

AAU includes nearly 70 universities throughout the country, including Arizona State University, The University of Iowa, The University of Kansas, University of Maryland at College Park, Michigan State University, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Oregon, The Pennsylvania State University, University of Virginia, University of Washington and The University of Wisconsin – Madison, among many others.

The NIH posted on social media that during the last year, “$9B of the $35B that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) granted for research was used for administrative overhead, what is known as ‘indirect costs.’”

“Today, NIH lowered the maximum indirect cost rate research institutions can charge the government to 15%, above what many major foundations allow and much lower than the 60%+ that some institutions charge the government today. This change will save more than $4B a year effective immediately.”

Effect on Maine

A spokesperson for the University of Maine System said “walking back funding promises on activity already underway weakens Maine’s largest research enterprises, reduces access to hands-on learning opportunities for Maine students, and threatens the development of Maine-made cures, including for cancer, heart disease, infectious diseases and neuromuscular disorders.”

Samantha Warren, chief external and governmental affairs officer, wrote in a statement the University of Maine System has 23 active NIH awards, totaling $8.79 million, as well as 26 awards totaling $28.97 million that are currently pending.

The new NIH policy, she wrote, would lead to a loss of “$1.38 million in support for active UMS research programs and an additional $6.23 million associated with pending awards.”

“All of those awards include facilities and administration (F&A) cost commitments at a rate agreed to by the federal government, as has been standard since the 1950s,” Warren wrote. “While sometimes referred to as ‘overhead,’ F&A support is foundational to our public universities’ research activities and covers essential expenses, including those necessary to comply with extensive federal regulations, operate and maintain our campus laboratories, and safeguard scientific discoveries from foreign adversaries.

“There is a cost of doing research, and when our public universities conduct research on the federal government’s behalf, the federal government appropriately pledges to pay a portion of our necessary costs.”

Collins said in a statement she opposes “the poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH.”

“I have heard from the Jackson Laboratory, the University of Maine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute, the University of New England, and MDI Biological Laboratory, among others, that these cuts, which in some cases would apply retroactively to existing grants, would be devastating, stopping vital biomedical research and leading to the loss of jobs,” Collins wrote.

She also said language in the spending bill that funds the NIH prohibits the agency from modifying its indirect costs.

“There is no investment that pays greater dividends to American families than our investment in biomedical research,” Collins wrote. “In Maine, scientists are conducting much-needed research on Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, Duchenne’s Muscular Dystrophy, and on how to improve efficiency in drug discovery, helping to lower the cost of prescription drugs, and conducting many other life-enhancing or life-saving research.”

‘Nothing short of catastrophic’

Democratic members of Congress also alleged that NIH cannot make the change in policy, calling it illegal.

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., wrote in a statement the NIH policy change amounts to “an indiscriminate funding cut for research institutions across the country that will be nothing short of catastrophic for so much of the lifesaving research patients and families are counting on.”

“This will derail major breakthroughs by forcing research institutions—like the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the University of Washington in my state—to now scramble to make up this massive shortfall, almost certainly forcing layoffs across the country,” Murray wrote. “Sick kids may not get the treatment they need. Clinical trials may be shut down abruptly with dangerous consequences. Just because Elon Musk doesn’t understand indirect costs doesn’t mean Americans should have to pay the price with their lives.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, issued a statement alleging the NIH policy change is “in direct violation of the law.”

DeLauro pointed to the last full-year spending bill that funds the NIH, including Section 224, which directly addressed indirect costs.

“In this case, they are causing irreparable damage to ongoing research to develop cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, ALS, Diabetes, Mental Health disorders, opioid abuse, genetic diseases, rare diseases, and other diseases and conditions affecting American families,” DeLauro wrote. “The Trump Administration is attempting to steal critical funds promised to scientific research institutions funded by the NIH, despite an explicit legal prohibition against this action.”

Lawsuit filed

Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday challenging the new NIH policy.

They wrote in their 59-page filing that “(h)igh-level research requires funds not just for the costs that can be directly attributed to the specific work of a particular project, but also the indirect costs that support multiple projects.”

“These costs are broken up into ‘facilities’ and ‘administration’ costs. For example, in order to conduct research, a university needs buildings, and needs to maintain those buildings and supply them with heat and electricity,” the attorneys general wrote.

“And university staff need administrative support, including clerical staff, IT support, cybersecurity and data repositories, as well as staff to administer the university as a whole,” they wrote. “Again, these administrative costs support the university as a whole, and help make research possible without being attributable to any specific grant or project.”

Decreasing the Facilities and Administrative costs to 15% will have “immediate and devastating” impacts on universities and researchers throughout the country, the attorneys general wrote.

“This agency action will result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory closures,” they wrote. “NIH’s extraordinary attempt to disrupt all existing and future grants not only poses an immediate threat to the nation’s research infrastructure, but will also have a long-lasting impact on its research capabilities and its ability to provide life-saving breakthroughs in scientific research.”

Last updated 1:39 p.m., Feb. 10, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — Democratic attorneys general from throughout the country on Friday asked a federal judge to enforce a temporary restraining order he issued late last month, alleging the Trump administration is not complying with the court’s ruling.

The top Democrat on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee also raised questions about the ongoing pause in some grants and loans.

The attorneys general wrote in an emergency motion that “there has been an ever-changing kaleidoscope of federal financial assistance that has been suspended, deleted, in transit, under review, and more since entry of the Order.”

They asked Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, who issued the temporary restraining order on Jan. 31, to order the Trump administration “to immediately restore funds and desist from the federal funding pause until the preliminary injunction motion can be heard and decided, a process which is proceeding expeditiously in separate proceedings before this Court.”

McConnell is giving the Department of Justice until Sunday to respond.

Head Start programs stalled, meetings canceled

The attorneys general wrote in their 21-page emergency motion filed with McConnell on Friday that “(d)espite the Court’s order, Defendants have failed to resume disbursing federal funds in multiple respects.”

They wrote the Trump administration hasn’t begun distributing funding Congress approved in the Inflation Reduction Act or the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the bipartisan infrastructure law.

They alleged the National Institutes of Health “abruptly cancelled an advisory committee review meeting with Brown University’s School of Public Health for a $71 million grant on dementia care research, saying ‘all federal advisory committee meetings had been cancelled.’”

Head Start programs in Michigan and Vermont were unable to access funds on Feb. 5, they wrote.

The brief also says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Health Resources and Services Administration “renewed stop work orders to a University of Washington program doing global HIV prevention work” on Feb. 5 and Feb. 6.

The attorneys general wrote they tried to work through the delay in funding with the Trump administration but were unsuccessful, in part, due to differing interpretations of Judge McConnell’s temporary restraining order.

Fight over freeze

The Office of Management and Budget released a two-page memo in late January announcing that a funding freeze on trillions of dollars in grant and loan programs was set to begin Tuesday, Jan. 28 at 5 p.m.

The memo led to confusion throughout the country as organizations that receive federal funding tried to determine if they would be affected. Members of Congress were also unsure about which programs would be paused and which wouldn’t, despite being in the branch of government that controls spending.

Just before the freeze was set to take effect, Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia issued a short-term administrative stay preventing the Trump administration from beginning the funding freeze.

That separate lawsuit was filed by the National Council of Nonprofits, American Public Health Association, Main Street Alliance and Sage.

OMB then withdrew the memo, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on social media that rescinding the memo was “NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze.”

“It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” Leavitt wrote. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction.”

“The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented,” she added.

The Department of Justice moved to dismiss both cases after the OMB memo was rescinded, but both judges declined.

McConnell later issued a temporary restraining order in the lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. That was followed by a separate temporary restraining order from AliKhan.

‘Businesses left wondering’

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Friday entire local economies are at risk.

“The uncertainty alone over the fate of these investments is putting jobs on the chopping block, hurting American businesses left wondering whether contracts they’ve inked mean anything, and jeopardizing entire local economies,” Murray wrote in a statement. “What Trump is doing could shutter critical infrastructure projects in virtually every community, kill good-paying jobs, choke off funding for farmers, stop innovation in its tracks, leave massive holes in local communities’ budgets, and so much more.

“Once again: if Donald Trump or Elon Musk want to gut funding that’s creating good-paying jobs all across America, they can take their case to Congress and win the votes they need to do it. Defying the constitution to unilaterally rip away your tax dollars is not how this works.”

Murray released a five-page document detailing some of the areas where the Trump administration’s funding freeze continues to affect grant and loan programs.

Last updated 6:20 p.m., Feb. 7, 2025

Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Treasury secretary appeared on track for Senate confirmation after a wide-ranging hearing Thursday that included substantial debate on tax policy and how tariffs would affect everyday Americans.

Scott Bessent, a hedge fund manager whom Trump announced as his pick in November, repeatedly deferred to the incoming president’s policies during the Finance Committee hearing, though he did delve into his background and beliefs as well.

GOP senators appeared far more supportive than Democrats, though Bessent hasn’t elicited the type of concerns some of his fellow nominees have from left-leaning senators.

“When it comes to your qualifications to be the next secretary of the Treasury, there is no room for debate,” Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said at the end of the hearing. “And you have shown that today here in the hearing — your background, your training, everything is tailor-made for this role. And your character and demeanor are self-evident.”

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member on the panel, argued at the outset of the hearing that Bessent didn’t meet his requirements for Treasury secretary.

“Many people, myself included, hoped that the president-elect would pick a steady hand for Treasury secretary; someone who would be a moderating force, who’d work with all sides, and especially for the interests of all Americans for a tax code that gives everybody in America a chance to get ahead, not just the people at the top,” Wyden said. “I wish I had read something that would indicate that this nominee would be the kind of Treasury secretary I described.”

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who introduced his fellow South Carolinian at the beginning of the three-hour hearing, said he was very qualified to hold the role.

“I’m here today to tell you, if you use qualifications as your test, this is the easiest vote you’ll ever take,” Graham said. “If your goal is to play like the election didn’t happen, then I guess you’ll vote no.”

2017 tax cut law

Republican and Democratic senators on the committee repeatedly asked Bessent about the 2017 Republican lax law that’s often referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Trump and GOP members of Congress are planning to extend the various tax policies in that law, many of which are set to expire this year.

Republicans are planning to pass their new bill through the complicated budget reconciliation process, which has strict rules, but means they won’t need to negotiate with Democrats.

Bessent said during his hearing that extending the tax policy in the 2017 law past the sunset date is “the single most important economic issue of the day.”

“If we do not renew and extend, then we will be facing an economic calamity,” Bessent said. “And as always, with financial instability, that falls on the middle- and-working-class people.”

Bessent testified he favors Congress extending the 2017 law for Americans at all income levels, including those making more than $400,000, $1 million, $10 million, or even $1 billion, in response to a series of questions from Georgia Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock.

“There is no income level that I don’t think we should continue the TCJA as it was,” Bessent said.

Allowing previous, higher tax rates to go back into place for people making between $400,000 and $1 million would likely “capture an inordinate amount of small business people,” he said.

Bessent gave a similar answer for people making more than $1 million, saying he believed higher taxes on that segment of the country would negatively affect “small business pass-through owners.”

He said the federal government should want to “put in incentives for them to invest” when asked about people making more than $10 million a year. And that people making more than $1 billion annually shouldn’t have their tax rates increased since they are “job creators.”

‘A spending problem’

While much of Bessent’s testimony focused on tax rates, which contribute most of the revenue the federal government has to spend on programs, he also spoke about the spending side of the federal ledger.

Bessent said he believes the country’s annual deficit is not the result of the government bringing in too little revenue from taxes and fees, but because Congress has approved too much spending.

“We do not have a revenue problem in the United States of America; we have a spending problem,” Bessent said. “And to be clear, this is one of the things that got me out from behind my desk and my quiet life in this campaign — was the thought that this spending is out of control.”

The federal government spent $6.1 trillion and brought in $4.4 trillion in revenue during fiscal year 2023, according to data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Treasury Department had to borrow the rest to pay all of the country’s bills.

The bulk of that spending went to so-called mandatory programs, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which accounted for $3.8 trillion.

The remainder of federal spending went to what’s referred to as discretionary programs, with $805 billion for defense and $917 billion going to the domestic side of the ledger.

Bessent said during his opening statement that in order to get the country’s “fiscal house in order” he would propose that Congress “adjust federal domestic discretionary spending.”

Congress cutting all domestic discretionary spending — which goes toward hundreds of programs, including agriculture, border security, public lands and transportation — might balance the budget, though likely with significant economic consequences.

Most economists argue that to reduce or eliminate the country’s annual deficit, Congress must increase revenue and decrease spending.

IRS direct tax filing

Bessent, if confirmed by the Senate, would have some influence over whether the IRS continues a program launched just last year that allows Americans to file their taxes for free.

When asked about preserving the Direct File program by Wyden, he only committed to doing so for this calendar year.

“I will commit that for this tax season that direct file will be operative and the American taxpayers who choose to use it, will,” he said. “And if confirmed, I will consult and study the program, and understand it better, and make sure that it works to serve the IRS’s three goals of collections, customer service and privacy.”

Tariffs eyed

Bessent didn’t go into detail during the hearing about when and how exactly Trump plans to implement tariffs once in office, though he did encourage lawmakers to watch for three specific areas.

“One will be for remedying unfair trade practices, either by industry or country — the Chinese tariffs, the steel,” Bessent said. “Two, may be for a more generalized tariff as a revenue raiser for the federal budget.”

The third type of tariff, he said, would likely focus on encouraging countries to negotiate with the United States on issues Trump views as important.

“He believes that we’ve probably gotten over our skis … on sanctions. And that sanctions may be driving countries out of the use of the U.S. dollar so the tariffs can be used for negotiations,” Bessent said, specifically mentioning Mexico blocking fentanyl from entering the country.

Bessent maintained he doesn’t believe the tariffs will raise prices on goods for Americans, a position with which several Democrats on the panel and numerous economists outside Congress disagree.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell said she hoped the Trump administration would reconsider some of its proposed tariffs.

“I do think we’re going to see retaliatory tariffs,” Cantwell said, adding that previous tariffs negatively affected her home state and agriculture.

Minimum wage

Bessent said he would likely advise Trump and Republicans against raising the federal minimum wage above $7.25 per hour, in response to a question from Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.

“I believe that the minimum wage is more of a statewide and regional issue,” he said.

Russian sanctions

Bessent said he would fully support efforts to raise sanctions on Russia in trying to end the war in Ukraine, calling when and where the Biden administration implemented tariffs “not fulsome enough.”

“If any officials in the Russian Federation are watching this confirmation hearing, they should know that if I’m confirmed, and if President Trump requests as part of his strategy to end the Ukraine war, that I will be 100% on board for taking sanctions up; especially on the Russian oil majors to levels that would bring Russian Federation to the table.”

Last updated 5:02 p.m., Jan. 16, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats raised concerns Wednesday that Republicans have scheduled a hearing for one of President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees before he completed the necessary paperwork and an FBI background check.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Energy and Natural Resources Committee ranking member Martin Heinrich separately criticized the decision, saying it sets a troubling precedent.

“Yesterday, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources noticed a hearing for Governor Doug Burgum to serve as the next secretary of the Interior, without minority consent, as has long been standard practice,” Schumer said during a floor speech. “Senate Democrats on the committee expressed reasonable objections to proceeding to this hearing, because the committee has not yet received basic information on Governor Burgum’s background.”

Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, released a written statement that he was extremely disappointed Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, chairman of the committee, scheduled the hearing for Burgum, the former governor of North Dakota.

“The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and, if it determines, consent to the President’s nominees. This requires careful consideration of each nominee,” Heinrich wrote. “To achieve this, for decades, nominees that have come before the ENR Committee have submitted responses to a standard questionnaire and a completed financial disclosure form, approval from the Department’s ethics office, and completion of an FBI background check. Until these steps have been completed, I will not consent to notice of nomination hearings.

“Every nominee, every party, every administration should be subject to the same standards. I would urge Chairman Lee to reconsider his decision.”

A committee spokesperson said Heinrich has not yet received confirmation the FBI completed Burgum’s background check.

Heinrich also hasn’t received Burgum’s financial disclosure report, called Form 278e, or paperwork from the Office of Government Ethics saying their personnel have reviewed his financial disclosures and ethics agreements, and they believe he is in compliance with ethics laws, as required by the Ethics in Government Act, according to the spokesperson.

Lee in his own statement wrote that it was “disappointing to see Ranking Member Heinrich seeking to delay issuance of a hearing notice instead of focusing on delivering what voters demanded in November’s election: restoring American energy dominance after years of high energy prices and policy failures.”

“Governor Burgum submitted his paperwork to the Office of Government Ethics last week, and the committee has the same amount of paperwork that Energy and Natural Resources Committee Democrats had in 2009 when they noticed confirmation hearings,” Lee wrote. “I, as chairman, have made every effort to work with our Democratic colleagues, but we won’t give in to delays that undermine the American people’s mandate. It’s time to move forward and focus on solutions that will unleash America’s full energy potential, and I hope Democrats will work with us to deliver results for the American people.”

Burgum hearing anticipated next week

Burgum’s hearing is scheduled for Tuesday at 10 a.m., making it one of the first hearings for any of Trump’s nominees. Trump announced in November that he wanted Burgum, who ended his second term as North Dakota’s governor in December, to lead the Interior Department.

Burgum, 68, graduated from North Dakota State University in 1978 before going on to attend Stanford University Graduate School of Business, where he received a master’s of business administration in 1980.

He worked at Great Plains Software, becoming CEO before Microsoft bought the company in 2001. Burgum then worked as senior vice president for that company until 2007. A year later, he co-founded venture capital firm Arthur Ventures.

Yahoo Finance estimated in 2002 that Burgum’s net worth was approximately $1.1 billion.

Burgum was first elected as governor of North Dakota in 2016 with 76.5% of the vote and then reelected in 2020 with 65.8%.

Other confirmation hearings scheduled for Tuesday include a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing for former U.S. Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, whom Trump plans to nominate for VA secretary, and an Armed Services Committee hearing for Pete Hegseth, whom Trump wants to lead the Department of Defense.

The confirmation process is expected to continue Wednesday with hearings for Trump’s pick for Homeland Security secretary, Kristi Noem of South Dakota, in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; his selection for secretary of State, Marco Rubio of Florida, in the Foreign Relations Committee; and the pick for Office of Management and Budget director, Russ Vought, in the Homeland Security committee.

Others are likely to be scheduled in the days and weeks ahead, but the Senate cannot take floor votes on the nominees until after Trump takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

No hearing yet for RFK Jr.

Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Bill Cassidy said during a brief interview earlier this week he didn’t know when he would begin committee hearings with Trump’s nominees for public health agencies, like the National Institutes of Health or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, since they hadn’t yet completed their paperwork and background checks.

The Louisiana Republican said he hoped to begin those hearings before the end of January, but wasn’t sure if that would be possible.

“The only reason I hesitate is because, obviously, we have other hearings and I’m not sure if everything … that we need to receive, we have received. So partly, this is outside my hands,” Cassidy said.

Other committees, he said, were also waiting on paperwork and background checks from some of Trump’s nominees before scheduling hearings.

“I know other committees have had issues that they’ve not yet received everything they need to receive, in which case I don’t control that process,” Cassidy said.

The ongoing outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as bird flu, or H5N1, is one reason Cassidy gave for why he wants to quickly confirm public health nominees.

“Well, H5N1 is serious, absolutely. And, of course, you want to get people in there, you want it to be the right person, on and on and on,” Cassidy said. “So I think we proceed with all due haste.”

Louisiana reported the country’s first human death related to the ongoing bird flu outbreak on Monday, shortly after Cassidy gave his comments about the confirmation process.

Cassidy met on Wednesday with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, in the senator’s Capitol Hill office, a typical part of the nomination process.

Cassidy, a physician who earned his medical degree from Louisiana State University Medical School in 1983, wrote on social media afterward that he had “a frank conversation” with Kennedy.

“We spoke about vaccines at length,” Cassidy wrote. “Looking forward to the hearings in HELP and Finance.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

Last updated 4:13 p.m., Jan. 8, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump enlisted Washington outsiders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to tell members of Congress how they should run things.

But Musk and Ramaswamy as they build their Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, don’t actually hold any elected or bureaucratic positions in the federal government — giving two hard-driving businessmen far less authority than they’re used to having in the private sector.

The duo will need to garner support from hundreds of members of Congress for any of their suggested spending cuts to become law, even with Republicans in control of the White House and both chambers of Congress. That is an uphill slog many have failed at before.

The mix of personalities, differing committee jurisdictions and separation of powers laid out in the Constitution could create tension, to say the least, when powerful Republican lawmakers disagree with or outright ignore Musk and Ramaswamy. Several Republicans indicated in interviews with States Newsroom that they intend to listen to the DOGE duo but will not back down from their roles as elected representatives of the people.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, the incoming chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said during a brief interview she believes the two men can offer lawmakers “valuable insights” and advice, but cautioned the power of the purse rests with Congress.

“It doesn’t mean that we will take all of these issues, but it’s always helpful to have additional oversight,” Collins said. “And so I look forward to seeing what they come up with.”

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up Democrats’ views on the Musk-Ramaswamy entity in a social media post.

“What does Doggie (“DOGE”) do? Maybe think of it this way: you have to watch a couple of precocious toddlers for the day,” Whitehouse wrote. “They need activities, but you don’t want them near stoves, cars, electrical equipment, or anything operational.”

Meet the appropriators

In Congress, the Appropriations Committee is tasked with drafting the dozen annual government funding bills that total about $1.7 trillion. The legislation funds the vast majority of federal departments and agencies, including Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Justice, State and Transportation.

The other two-thirds of federal spending covers interest payments on the debt, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Idaho GOP Rep. Mike Simpson, chairman of the Interior-Environment Subcommittee, told States Newsroom he expects there will be “conflict” between Congress and the Musk-Ramaswamy group, in part, because they don’t have the years, or even decades, of experience learning the ins and outs of federal spending that appropriators hold.

“I noticed that they’ve said that they want to defund public television. I think they might get some kickback on that,” Simpson said. “To me, that’s a policy decision, not an efficiency issue.”

When GOP lawmakers met with Musk and Ramaswamy behind closed doors in early December to talk about government spending, Simpson said, the two pressed the idea that Trump should be able to cancel spending he deems “waste.”

But what Trump might consider unnecessary could be an essential program to a GOP lawmaker or a rural community, Simpson said.

There’s also a federal law called the Impoundment Control Act that prevents presidents from halting funding that Congress has approved and a Supreme Court ruling that bars the president from using line-item vetoes.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack, chairman of the Transportation-HUD Subcommittee, told States Newsroom he expects there will need to be some “deconfliction” once Musk and Ramaswamy release their proposals.

“There will be a lot of different, competing interests and ideas, and we’ll just have to see what those are,” Womack said. “It’s a little premature, but, yeah, I’m sure there’ll be some deconfliction, there’ll be some negotiating. Some of this will be leveraged with other significant emotional events up here like debt ceiling, or funding the government.”

Floor votes could also be a hurdle for the various DOGE groups if they don’t gain Democratic support. Republicans will hold just 220 seats in the House at the start of the 119th Congress before a few of their members depart for other opportunities. That razor-thin margin means proposals from Musk and Ramaswamy will need support from the full spectrum of GOP lawmakers to pass.

Then they’ll need to gain the support of nearly all 53 GOP senators if they expect any spending cuts proposals to become law through the complex budget reconciliation process.

Proving their value

One of the many challenges for Musk and Ramaswamy will be showcasing how their efforts differ from those of the White House budget office.

Bipartisan Policy Center Managing Director for Economic Policy Rachel Snyderman said in an interview with States Newsroom she’ll be watching closely to see whether Musk and Ramaswamy integrate their proposals with the president’s budget request, which the White House will likely release sometime in the spring.

That massive document tells Congress how the president wants lawmakers to change tax and spending policy. Congress, however, rarely follows it to the letter and often ignores large swaths of it.

If Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals go a completely different route, it could create confusion about what exactly it is the Trump administration wants lawmakers to do and could bog down any support they might get on Capitol Hill.

But simply mirroring what’s already in the budget request would lead to a question about whether or not Musk and Ramaswamy serve any real purpose.

“If you go back and look at the budgets from Trump’s first term … they averaged about $1.6 trillion in cuts over a 10-year budget window,” Snyderman said. “And at least for the first two years, those were presented to a GOP trifecta as well and not implemented as policy.”

Snyderman said Musk and Ramaswamy will likely want to do something other than reinvent the wheel by simply republishing the hundreds of government efficiency and spending cuts proposed over the years by the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office and inspectors general.

Those groups have given lawmakers and presidents plenty of recommendations to reduce waste, fraud and abuse. But government officials don’t always act on their suggestions.

“There have been so many resources over the years doing just this — proposing smart, sensible, but tough pills to swallow when it comes to government efficiency,” Snyderman said. “What I think it’s going to really boil down to is what’s politically palatable through legislative or executive action. And where as a nation we’re willing to make those trade-offs in service to improve our fiscal outlook and trying to get a handle on the national debt.”

One of the more recent examples, she said, was the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s release of a detailed, 116-page report on ways that lawmakers could reduce the deficit in mid-December.

Impoundment law

If Republicans disagree with Musk and Ramaswamy’s suggestions or only put a few of them in place, it could lead Trump to try to cut spending unilaterally.

Such a decision would create considerable issues for Republicans, since it would violate the Impoundment Control Act and potentially set a new precedent that future Democratic presidents could use to ignore Congress on conservative spending priorities.

That Impoundment Control Act, enacted after then-President Richard Nixon refused to spend billions approved by lawmakers, essentially says a president must distribute money Congress has approved for various federal departments and agencies. It also gives the president a couple of paths to ask lawmakers to cut spending they’ve already approved, but they must agree.

Russ Vought, who has been nominated as director of the Office of Management and Budget, is likely to press the belief that presidents can unilaterally cancel spending, often called “impoundment.”

The Center for Renewing America, the think tank Vought established following his stint as OMB director during the first Trump administration, has repeatedly argued the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and published a detailed history of how presidents canceled spending before the 1974 law took effect.

The Trump administration ignoring the ICA would likely lead to legal challenges and eventually a Supreme Court ruling.

Checks and balances

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, the top Republican on the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, told States Newsroom some of the government efficiency proposals that Musk and Ramaswamy pursue will be able to move through executive action, but said any spending cuts must go through Congress.

“This is a country of 320 million people that all have a different point of view about all these different issues, which is why you’ve got to have the kind of process we have, the checks and balances and all that — to figure out where is there enough support to implement these recommendations,” Hoeven said. “That’s how the system works because you’re talking about something that’s very far-reaching and it’s going to affect people throughout the country.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the top Republican on the Military Construction-VA spending subcommittee, said he expects there will be a lot of communication between lawmakers, Musk and Ramaswamy about constitutional authority to try to avoid public disagreements, though he didn’t rule that out.

“I think as long as the communication lines are open, we should hopefully end most of that,” he said.

Incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during a press conference he expects it will take some time for Musk and Ramaswamy to “scrutinize government operations and figure out where we can achieve savings and efficiencies” before Congress reviews those recommendations and puts them in a bill.

Thune said he would like to see some of those move through the budget reconciliation process that Republicans are planning to use to get around the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster; essentially allowing the GOP to move sweeping policy changes without Democratic input.

More cooks in Congress

Republicans have talked about cutting government spending for decades, but haven’t used unified control of government to make significant structural reforms in quite some time.

Newly formed groups in the House and Senate will likely provide some support for Musk and Ramaswamy’s proposals, but they may disagree with them as well, or come up with completely separate ideas.

The combination of Musk and Ramaswamy’s DOGE, a soon-to-be-formed House Oversight subcommittee on government efficiency chaired by Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the government efficiency caucus could become a too-many-cooks scenario.

The Delivering Outstanding Government Efficiency Caucus already holds several Republican lawmakers among its ranks, but it doesn’t have the jurisdiction that the Appropriations Committee holds. Neither does the Oversight subcommittee.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst established the caucus alongside Florida Rep. Aaron Bean and Texas Rep. Pete Sessions

North Carolina’s Ted Budd, Texans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Oklahoma’s James Lankford, Utah’s Mike Lee, Kansan Roger Marshall, Ohio’s Bernie Moreno, Missouri’s Eric Schmitt, Florida’s Rick Scott and Alaska’s Dan Sullivan have all joined the group on the Senate side.

House members include Rick Allen of Georgia, Jim Baird of Indiana, Andy Barr of Kentucky, Stephanie Bice of Oklahoma, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma, Ben Cline of Virginia, Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, Ron Estes of Kansas, Pat Fallon of Texas, Scott Franklin of Florida, Carlos Giménez of Florida, Glenn Grothman of Wisconsin, Diana Harshbarger of Tennessee, Doug LaMalfa of California, Nick Langworthy of New York, Debbie Lesko of Arizona, Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Celeste Maloy of Utah, Tom McClintock of California, Cory Mills of Florida, Dan Newhouse of Washington, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Gary Palmer of Alabama, David Rouzer of North Carolina, Mike Rulli of Ohio, Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, Beth Van Duyne of Texas, Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin, Tim Walberg of Michigan, Randy Weber of Texas, Daniel Webster of Florida, Roger Williams of Texas and Joe Wilson of South Carolina.

Last updated 7:56 p.m., Dec. 20, 2024

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: info@ncnewsline.com.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a broadly bipartisan bill early Saturday that would increase Social Security benefits for millions of Americans with pensions by ending two of the program’s policies in place for decades — the windfall elimination provision and government pension offset.

The legislation, which would cost more than $195 billion over 10 years, now goes to President Joe Biden for his signature. While he hasn’t released a public endorsement of the bill, extensive support in the House and Senate could signal he’s likely to support the measure becoming law.

The Senate vote was 76-20 and the House vote in November was 327-75.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins said during floor debate Wednesday that a fix for the two provisions has been decades in the making, noting she held the first hearing on the issue in the upper chamber in 2003.

Collins later partnered with the late California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to introduce the first version of the bill in 2005, before working with former Maryland Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski in 2007 on another version.

“Social Security is the foundation of retirement income for most Americans, yet many teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants often see their earned Social Security benefits unfairly reduced by two provisions,” Collins said.

The windfall elimination provision, she said, “affects public servants who receive a pension from a job not covered by Social Security, but who also worked long enough in another job to qualify for Social Security benefits.”

The government pension offset affects people who worked in jobs that weren’t eligible for Social Security, but were eligible for a spousal benefit. That pension offset, Collins said, can reduce a spouse’s Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the non-covered pension, leading to 70% of those affected by the GPO to lose the entire Social Security benefit.

“This issue is extraordinarily important in my state of Maine because the state’s pension system does not include a Social Security component,” Collins said. “And among those most affected are Maine school teachers.”

Collins called the WEP and the GPO “an unfair, inequitable penalty.”

Hit to trust fund

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the bill’s title made it sound like “motherhood and apple pie,” but argued it wasn’t the right approach to address the problem.

He expressed concern the bill would reduce the Social Security trust fund by an additional $200 billion during the next decade, moving up the insolvency date by six months.

“This chamber needs courage and needs to say what needs to be said — we are about to pass an unfunded $200 billion spending package for a trust fund that is likely to go insolvent over the next nine to ten years and we’re going to pretend like somebody else has to fix it,” Tillis said. “Well, when you’re a U.S. senator and you have your election certificate, that falls on us.”

Tillis said he agreed with Collins and others who support the bill that the WEP and the GPO must be fixed, but said that should be part of a larger conversation about addressing Social Security’s upcoming insolvency.

“We do not disagree with what we ultimately need to do,” Tillis said. “This is a disagreement in how to get here and how to have something that assesses the downstream risk. So it is with some trepidation that I come to the floor and criticize the good work of Sen. Collins. But I do it because there is so much riding on us getting this right and having the courage to fix Social Security over the next few years.”

Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown said during floor debate Wednesday that people who paid into Social Security for the required amount of time should receive their full benefits.

“Social Security we know is a bedrock of our middle class — it’s retirement security that Americans pay into and earn over a lifetime,” Brown said. “You pay in for 40 quarters, you pay in essentially for 10 years. You’ve earned it. It should be there when you retire.”

Brown said it “makes no sense” that workers in certain public service jobs, like teachers, police officers and firefighters, cannot draw their full benefits.

“They protect our communities, they teach our kids, they pay into Social Security just like everyone else,” Brown said.

How do these provisions work?

The pension offset reduces a “spousal or widow(er)’s benefits of most people who also receive pensions based on federal, state, or local government employment not covered by Social Security,” according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The windfall elimination provision changes the formula to reduce Social Security benefits for people “who are also entitled to pension benefits based on earnings from jobs that were not covered by Social Security,” the report said.

The pension offset affects about 746,000 Americans while the windfall provision affects 2.1 million.

“The share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the GPO varies widely by state,” the CRS report says. “States with a relatively larger share of GPO-affected beneficiaries are usually those with a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or those with more (Civil Service Retirement System) retirees.”

The pension offset has a disproportionate impact on Social Security beneficiaries in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Utah.

The windfall elimination provision affects a larger percentage of residents in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington, Wyoming.

“Similar to the GPO, the share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP varies by state,” CRS wrote. “Typically, states that have a larger share of state and local government employees not covered by Social Security or more CSRS retirees have a relatively larger share of Social Security beneficiaries affected by the WEP.”

Bipartisan House support

The U.S. House voted 327-75 in November to approve the four-page bill, sponsored by Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves and Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger.

Graves said during floor debate that for 40 years, Social Security worked by “treating people differently, discriminating against a certain set of workers.”

“These are police officers, teachers, firefighters, and other public servants,” Graves said at the time. “I worked side by side with these folks. They are not people who are overpaid. They are not people who are underworked.”

Spanberger called the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset “two misguided provisions that were added to the Social Security Act in 1983 (and) have denied Americans the retirement security they worked for and expected to receive.”

“For more than 40 years, public servants have tirelessly implored their representatives in Congress to listen to their stories and to correct this glaring injustice,” Spanberger said. “Today, for the first time, Congress will vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, to repeal the WEP and the GPO, and to finally put an end to this theft.”

Opposition to bill

Missouri Republican Rep. Jason Smith, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the two provisions affect around 4% of all Social Security beneficiaries, more than 60% of whom are concentrated in 10 states.

The two provisions, he said, “were put in place more than four decades ago to prevent workers with earnings that were exempt from Social Security payroll taxes from getting more generous treatment from Social Security than workers who spent their whole careers contributing to Social Security.”

“Unfortunately, these policies still result in overly generous benefits for some while unfairly penalizing others,” Smith said, before arguing the bill wasn’t the right way to address the two provisions.

Smith said that getting rid of the two provisions “without a replacement potentially trades unfair treatment for preferential treatment.”

He also expressed concern about how pulling more money from the Social Security trust fund would impact solvency.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost $195.65 billion during the next 10 years and wrote in a letter to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that it would likely move up the Social Security insolvency date by six months.

“If H.R. 82 was enacted, the balance of the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) trust fund would, CBO projects, be exhausted roughly half a year earlier than it would be under current law,” CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote. “The agency estimates that under current law, the balance of the OASI trust fund would be exhausted during fiscal year 2033.”

The Social Security trustees report for 2024 says that the program will be able to pay full benefits until 2035. After that, if Congress hasn’t brokered a solution, Social Security would be able to pay about 83% of benefits.

Last updated 7:11 a.m., Dec. 21, 2024

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger testified Wednesday that more than 700 threats against members of Congress were made during the last month alone, with at least 50 cases of people making false 911 calls in an attempt to get police teams to respond to lawmakers’ homes, often called “swatting.”

Manger, who took over the police department following the Jan. 6 attack, said the agency has done a relatively good job bolstering security at the Capitol building during the last few years, but needs more officers and money to address lawmakers’ security when they are back home or at offsite events.

Manger pointed to the dignitary protection division, which is responsible for keeping congressional leadership safe wherever they go, as “woefully understaffed.”

“We provide the protection at the level it needs to be. But you do that through officers working double shifts and averaging … 50 hours of overtime every pay period,” Manger said.

The division that protects leadership currently holds about 250 officers, but Manger pressed for that to be doubled to at least 500.

“And not only can we provide protection for the leadership 24/7, but when we have people that have threats against them that require us to stand up temporary details, we can do that,” Manger said. “Because right now, when we do it, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're yanking somebody off another detail to stand up a detail to help someone for a temporary threat situation.”

There are numerous situations, he testified, where if USCP had more officers it could better protect lawmakers both on and off Capitol Hill. For example, USCP needs more than the 20 or so agents it currently has investigating threats against members of Congress.

Woman in Georgia killed

Threats against lawmakers have been on the rise for years, but are having increasingly dire consequences. Just this week a woman in Georgia was killed in what local police described as a “tragic chain of events” after an email falsely claimed there was a bomb in the mailbox at Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s home there.

Manger said during the hearing in the Senate Rules Committee that lawmakers need to raise USCP’s spending levels to allow it to continue holding 12 recruiting classes per year of 25 officers each for the next few years.

The mandatory retirement age for USCP should also be raised from 60 to 65 to match the “tweak” the Secret Service holds that allows it to keep senior officers working above the ceiling of 57 years old for federal law enforcement, which Manger called “shameful” because he believes it is too low.

“We have people that are in the prime of their career at that age and they got to go. And so, you know, I've been able to get the Capitol Police Board to agree to extend it to the age 60. And I have several officers that I've spoken with just in the last month who are hitting 60 years old, and they said, 'Chief, I don't want to go,'” Manger said. “And you look at them, and they look like they're 35 and they certainly can still do the job, physically, mentally, and they're some of the best cops you'd ever want to work with. But I have no ability to hold on to them.”

More News

Related News

WASHINGTON — Voters are determining whether the next president enters office with a friendly Congress or a hostile one set on blocking their policies and nominees — and as the election roars into its last moments it’s still very unclear what the makeup of the House and Senate might be.

Most House races are not competitive. But House leaders are closely watching about two dozen toss-up contests to see whether Democrats or Republicans end up with the magic 218 lawmakers needed to control the speaker’s gavel, the agenda and the floor schedule.

The GOP’s razor-thin majority during the last two years created significant obstacles for leadership’s legislative goals and ended Kevin McCarthy’s speakership.

Neither political party is expected to gain a large House majority during the next Congress, set to begin in January. There’s even a possibility the majority party has less wiggle room than the 220-212 split that currently exists, along with three vacancies. Experts warn it may not be known on election night or for some time who’s won the House.

Senate leaders have been equally focused on hard-fought and close campaigns in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Any one of them could deliver control of the upper chamber.

Republicans are favored to turn over the West Virginia seat occupied by Joe Manchin III, potentially pushing them past the 50-member benchmark if they hold onto seats occupied by incumbents Ted Cruz in Texas, Deb Fischer in Nebraska and Rick Scott in Florida.

If Democrats keep 50 seats, that would mean whichever party holds the vice presidency controls the Senate, making even just one pickup in either direction a priority for both political parties.

The outcome in both the House and Senate will have sweeping implications for the country’s future, including whether the GOP overhauls Obamacare, how lawmakers address core aspects of Republicans’ 2017 tax law set to expire in the coming months and whether the country defaults on its debts for the first time in history.

Four tense toss-ups in the Senate

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates four Senate races as toss-ups, meaning there’s a relatively even chance for Democrats or Republicans to win.

While the campaigns have shifted around a bit during the last few months, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are all considered neck and neck heading into Election Day.

Arizona and Nevada are categorized as leaning toward Democrats and Montana is expected to lean toward a Republican pickup, potentially giving the GOP its 51st seat and a narrow majority.

It’s also possible there could be upsets in Republican-held states traditionally considered safer, like Florida, Nebraska and Texas.
That could alter the math for both Democrats and Republicans, depending on how things shake out after all the votes are counted, recounts finalized and lawsuits settled in the days and weeks following Nov. 5.

Jessica Taylor, editor for U.S. Senate and Governors at the Cook Political Report, said in a statement released Friday the “battle for the Senate fundamentally ends where the cycle began — with an overwhelmingly favorable map that very likely portends a GOP majority.”

Her projections show the GOP picking up two to five seats, giving the party a majority between 51 and 54 members.

A narrower majority, Taylor said, would allow “moderates like Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins to wield outsized influence in the next Congress.”

Will some voters split their tickets?

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said during an interview with Washington Post Live in late October that he expects voters in Montana and Ohio will split their tickets.

He acknowledged getting voters to support Democratic Sens. Jon Tester in Montana and Sherrod Brown in Ohio, while also voting for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, will be much more challenging than in the past.

“Certainly, it’s not easy if there’s a lot of political gravity,” Peters said. “I’m not going to sugarcoat that in any way.”

But, he said, both Tester and Brown have been consistently polling within the margin of error against their GOP challengers.

“It’s about who’s going to get their voters out and do the kind of ground campaign necessary to win,” Peters said. “We’re doing that in Montana. We’re doing that in Ohio as well.”

The Senate is more important to the next president than the House, since the upper chamber is responsible for vetting and confirming the next commander-in-chief’s selections for their Cabinet as well as judicial nominees.

A GOP Senate would be a gift for Trump but likely tough for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The opposite could also be true — a Democratic majority in the Senate could put the brakes on many of Trump’s plans for a second term, while it would aid Harris in setting up her administration and potentially confirming a Supreme Court justice or two.

The Senate is the more bipartisan of the two chambers, thanks to the legislative filibuster — the rule requiring at least 60 senators agree to advance legislation toward final passage.

Without bipartisan support, bills and some nominees will be stuck in limbo, regardless of which party runs the Senate or controls the White House.

Possible standoff

Philip Wallach, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, said a Harris administration and a Republican Senate would need to work out an agreement quickly “or risk going into some kind of protracted standoff over executive branch nominations.”

Both Trump and President Joe Biden had the luxury of same-party Senate control during their full terms and former President Barack Obama had a Democratic Senate during his first six years in office. Harris possibly having to work with the opposing party to establish her Cabinet would be especially challenging, Wallach said in an interview.

“I would expect Republicans to try to come up with some pretty concrete asks as a conference: To say, ‘If we’re going to put any of your nominees up for a vote, here’s what we want in return, and here’s what kind of nominees we will accept.’ And, you know, I expect that would play out as a fairly heated public confrontation,” he said.

Trump and a Republican Senate would likely agree on some nominees and policy goals, though there would be significant differences over issues like tariffs.

“I think there are a lot of Republican senators who want to see some real limits to that, who still think of themselves as basically in favor of free trade and making sure that American businesses don’t find themselves on the wrong end of a trade war,” Wallach said. “Especially in the Senate, I just don’t think they’re that eager to just march to Trump’s tune.”

A Trump administration, he said, could also disagree with GOP lawmakers on the specific details of how to address tax policy.

“I think it’s a very live possibility that there could be a much more confrontational kind of dynamic this time around, in part, because Trump and some of the people right around him have this idea that playing nicely in 2017 was a big mistake,” Wallach said.

House ‘as close as it’s ever been’

Control of the 435-member House is more uncertain than the Senate, with 22 races rated as toss-ups by the Cook Political Report.

Twelve of those are held by Republicans, while 10 are occupied by Democratic lawmakers. At the moment, 205 House seats are at least leaning toward a Democratic win, with 208 districts at least leaning toward Republicans.

The Cook Political Report’s final projections range from Republicans adding five seats to their majority to Democrats picking up 10 seats and taking over the majority again.

“The race for control of the U.S. House remains as close as it’s ever been,”

Erin Covey, editor for the House at CPR, said in a written statement.

“The battleground is confined to a few dozen seats, with neither party having a clear advantage in a majority of seats,” Covey added. “And with several competitive races in West Coast states that take longer to count their ballots, it’s highly possible we won’t know which party has control on election night.”

The House is essential to turning bills into law, though it doesn’t have any role in confirming presidential nominees. And unlike the Senate, there’s no legislative filibuster, which means the majority party can approve any bills it wants without buy-in from the minority party, as long as the leaders in the majority have the votes from their own members.

Republican control of at least one chamber of Congress and a Harris victory would force significant bipartisan compromise on must-pass legislation, like the dozen annual government funding bills and the defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act.

It could also lead to the types of bipartisan legislation that Biden made a hallmark of his term in office, including the bipartisan infrastructure law.

That type of divided government is unlikely to produce the sweeping changes to home ownership, prescription drug prices, price gouging and reproductive rights that Harris has highlighted throughout her campaign.

But it could lead Republicans and Democrats to resurrect the bipartisan immigration and border security bill that Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema agreed to earlier this year.

Trump in the White House and Democrats holding onto at least one chamber in Congress could also force bipartisan compromise, though likely with a far different tone and approach than under a Harris-Republican Congress scenario.

GOP trifecta?

Trump regaining the presidency along with GOP control of Congress would give the party at least two chances to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass certain legislation.

The party would likely use one of those opportunities to address provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law that have expired or are about to.

The budget reconciliation process, which has considerable rules and restrictions, is how Republicans passed the tax bill during Trump’s first term in office.

It doesn’t require at least 60 senators to advance the bill. But it does include something known as a vote-a-rama, where the Senate holds dozens of votes on amendments to the bill. The process typically lasts throughout the night and gives the party not in power a chance to force their colleagues across the aisle to vote on tough issues.

Budget reconciliation is the process Republicans used to try to repeal and replace the 2010 health care law that’s often referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, during Trump’s first term in office.

Speaker Mike Jonson, R-La., said in late October on Fox Business that some of his prior comments about overhauling the ACA were taken out of context and that he wants to make changes to the program, but not entirely end it.

“I said the ACA, unfortunately, is deeply ingrained in our health care system now,” he said. “Do we need further improvements? Absolutely. We need to expand quality of care, access to care and obviously lower the cost of health care.”

Johnson said during the interview that he was “convinced” Republicans would gain unified control of government following the election and that he had compiled a “two-hour slide show presentation” detailing what the GOP would do with that power.

“We will secure the border on day one with a President Trump executive order and then legislation to follow, and we will turn immediately to the economy,” Johnson said. “Energy policy will be the center of that as well.”

Deeply conservative House bills might not garner the support needed to overcome the Senate’s legislative filibuster.

Unified Republican control of Congress and the White House would challenge the GOP to address the nation’s debt limit mostly on its own during the first half of next year after the current law expires.

A default on the nation’s debt is vastly different from a partial government shutdown, which takes place when Congress doesn’t pass an appropriations package on time.

Failing to either raise or suspend the nation’s debt limit, before what’s known as extraordinary measures runs out, would likely cause a global financial crisis.

The GOP has been extremely vocal about cutting government spending, but that is separate from addressing the nation’s debt limit, which gives the Treasury Department the borrowing authority to ensure all of the country’s bills are paid in full and on time.

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com. Follow New Jersey Monitor on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — A pro-democracy organization warned Monday that disinformation and violent rhetoric could make the weeks that follow Election Day especially fraught, pushing the country past the upheaval that arose four years ago during the last presidential transition.

The comments from three members of the Defend Democracy Project came just days before voting ends on Nov. 5, though with several races extremely close, the country may not know for days who won the presidential contest as well as control of Congress.

That could leave considerable space for speculation as state election workers count mail-in ballots and potentially undertake full recounts, similar to four years ago.

“I think the biggest vulnerability will continue to be the mis- and disinformation that will happen in the aftermath of the election,” said Olivia Troye, who previously worked for Vice President Mike Pence as a special adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism.

Troye raised concerns that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may make false claims about election fraud and encourage violence similar to what took place on Jan. 6, 2021, should he lose the Electoral College again.

Troye referenced an election bulletin from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security she said cautioned that “candidates, elected officials, election workers, members of the media, judges involved in these cases” could all become targets of post-election violence.

“And they’re also concerned about the visible attacks and violence on polling places or ballot drop boxes,” Troye said, referencing the burning of ballots inside drop boxes in Oregon and Washington states early Monday morning.

Michael Podhorzer, chair of the Defend Democracy Project, said during the virtual briefing for reporters that one of the reasons many state officials didn’t go along with requests to “find votes” for Trump in the days following the 2020 election was because President Joe Biden had “two states to spare.”

“And that created a prisoner’s dilemma for every Republican election official who might have done the wrong thing,” Podhorzer said. “So if you take the call to (Georgia Secretary of State) Brad Raffensperger, he understood that even if he could find those votes that Trump wanted, unless two Democratic secretaries of state overturned their results, Donald Trump was not going back to the White House.

“And what that meant was that there wasn’t any single actor, in the way there was in 2000 in Florida, who could actually change the results of the election.”

That could be different this time, should Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris win by a small margin, potentially just one state’s Electoral College votes, he said.

Accepting the results

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released a survey Monday showing 86% of registered voters believe whoever loses the presidential election should accept the results, though just 33% expect Trump will concede if he fails to secure the votes needed to win the Electoral College.

About 77% of those surveyed expected Harris to accept the results should she lose the presidential race.

Anxiety about post-election violence was rather high among the registered voters surveyed, with 76% saying they are extremely or somewhat concerned about violent attempts to overturn the election results.

Eighty-two percent said they were at least somewhat concerned about “increased political violence directed at political figures or election officials.”

Voters are also worried about foreign interference in the elections, with 78% of the registered voters surveyed saying they are extremely or somewhat concerned about it “influencing what Americans think about political candidates.”

The co-chairs of Issue One’s National Council on Election Integrity — former U.S. Reps. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., Donna Edwards, D-Md., Tim Roemer, D-Ind., and Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. — released a written statement Monday addressing a fake video produced by Russian actors about ballots in Pennsylvania. The statement also criticized a Maryland Republican congressman who said North Carolina should just give its Electoral College votes to Trump.

“Foreign adversaries are seeking to influence U.S. elections by sowing division and spreading false information to undermine confidence in our system of self-government,” the co-chairs wrote. “In addition, people who want to win at all costs continue to spread false claims about election integrity and may create chaos, delay results, and challenge the outcome of our fair electoral process.”

The four wrote the suggestions from Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, chairman of the far-right U.S. House Freedom Caucus, that North Carolina simply grant its 15 Electoral College votes to Trump “before votes are counted are dangerous and against the rule of law.”

“By rejecting the so-called independent state legislature theory in Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court affirmed that state legislatures do not have the power to replace the popular will with a slate of electors,” they wrote.

Issue One describes itself as a “crosspartisan” organization that works to “unite Republicans, Democrats, and independents in the movement to fix our broken political system and build an inclusive democracy that works for everyone.”

GOP blowback on Puerto Rico insults at Trump rally

Democrats and Republicans united somewhat Monday to express anger about comments a comedian made about Puerto Rico during a Trump rally on Sunday at Madison Square Garden.

Tony Hinchcliffe, who spoke in the hours leading up to Trump’s comments, called Puerto Rico a “floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now.”

Hinchcliffe later said Latinos “love making babies” and made additional lewd comments.

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Nanette Diaz Barragán, D-Calif., released a statement Monday calling the comments shameful and dangerous.

“This type of language emboldens prejudice, encourages violence, and undermines the values of unity and respect that our country is built on,” Barragán wrote. “It’s deeply troubling to see Republican leaders celebrate this rhetoric instead of promoting unity and truth.”

Vice President Harris told reporters traveling with her that the comedian’s comments were part of the reason voters are “exhausted” and “ready to turn the page” on Trump.

“It is absolutely something that is intended to, and is fanning the fuel of trying to divide our country,” Harris said.

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott posted on social media that the comedian’s comments about Puerto Rico were “not funny and it’s not true.”

“Puerto Ricans are amazing people and amazing Americans! I’ve been to the island many times. It’s a beautiful place. Everyone should visit!” Scott wrote. “I will always do whatever I can to help any Puerto Rican in Florida or on the island.”

Florida Republican Rep. Carlos A. Giménez posted on social media that the comedian’s comments were “completely classless & in poor taste.”

“Puerto Rico is the crown jewel of the Caribbean & home to many of the most patriotic Americans I know,” Giménez wrote. “@TonyHinchcliffe clearly isn’t funny & definitely doesn’t reflect my values or those of the Republican Party.”

Puerto Rico’s delegate to the U.S. House, Jenniffer González-Colón, a Republican, called the comedian’s remarks “despicable, misguided, and revolting.”

“What he said is not funny; just as his comments were rejected by the audience, they should be rejected by all!” González-Colón wrote. “There can be no room for such vile and racist expressions. They do not represent the values of the GOP.”

Ariana Figueroa contributed to this report.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris appeared alongside superstar performer Beyoncé on Friday night to encourage voter turnout and reinforce the differences between the two parties on reproductive rights, with just days to go before voting ends.

The rally at Shell Energy Stadium in Houston, Texas, followed months of speculation about whether Beyoncé would support Vice President Harris publicly ahead of the Nov. 5 presidential election. The two-hour event featured other celebrities, including Willie Nelson and Jessica Alba, as well as women detailing being denied medical care for pregnancy complications in Texas after its abortion ban went into effect.

Beyoncé, who has won more than 30 Grammy Awards as well as hundreds of others throughout her career, said casting a vote is “one of the most valuable tools” that Americans have to decide the future of the country.

“We are at the precipice of an incredible shift, the brink of history,” Beyoncé said, adding that she wasn’t speaking at the rally as a celebrity or a politician.

“I’m here as a mother,” she said. “A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to control our bodies.”

‘Horrific reality’

Harris, who is locked in an extremely close race with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, said abortion bans and restrictions implemented during the last two years have been “devastating.”

“We see the horrific reality that women and families face every single day,” Harris said. “The stories are vivid, they are difficult to hear, they are difficult to tell.”

Harris said there are also many stories that women and their families won’t discuss in public about challenges they’ve faced with access to medical care during pregnancy complications.

“An untold number of women and the people who love them, who are silently suffering — women who are being made to feel as though they did something wrong, as though they are criminals, as though they are alone,” Harris said. “And to those women. I say — and I think I speak on behalf of all of us — we see you and we are here with you.”

Harris said if voters give Trump another four years in the Oval Office, he will likely nominate more justices to the Supreme Court, which she argued would have a negative impact on the country.

“If he were reelected, he’d probably get to appoint one, if not two, members to the United States Supreme Court,” Harris said. “At which point Donald Trump will have packed the court with five out of nine justices … who will sit for lifetime appointments; shaping your lives and the lives of generations to come.”

Texas has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws, which has led to concerns about its OB-GYN workforce, how the state addresses maternal mortality and testimony before Congress about women having to leave the state to get care for pregnancy complications.

Texas is also where anti-abortion organizations decided to file a federal lawsuit in November 2022 challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 approval of medication abortion.

The two-drug regimen, consisting of mifepristone and misoprostol, is currently approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and is used in about 63% of abortions nationwide, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute.

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled earlier this year the organizations lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place, but the justices didn’t address the merits of the anti-abortion groups’ arguments.

Speaking at ‘ground zero’

Harris told reporters on Friday before the rally began that Republican lawmakers in Texas have made the state “ground zero in this fundamental fight for the freedom of women to make decisions about their own body.”

Harris contended that access to reproductive rights, including abortion, is “not just a political debate” or “some theoretical concept.”

“Real harm has occurred in this country, real suffering has occurred,” Harris told reporters. “People die, and it is important to highlight this issue because this is among the most critical issues that the American people will address when they vote for who will be the next president of the United States.”

During Trump’s first term in office, he nominated three Supreme Court justices, who later joined with other conservatives to overturn the constitutional right to abortion established in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case.

The Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago sent “the authority to regulate abortion … to the people and their elected representatives.”

That has led to a hodgepodge of laws with 13 states banning abortion, six states restricting access between six and 12 weeks, five states setting a gestational limit between 15 and 22 weeks, 17 states restricting abortion access after viability and nine states not setting a gestational limit, according to KFF.

Polls find support for abortion access

Public support for abortion access has outpaced support for restricting access for decades, according to consistent polling from the Pew Research Center.

The most recent survey from May shows that about 63% of Americans want abortion to be legal in most or all cases, while 36% said they believe it should be illegal in most or all cases.

Additional surveying from Pew shows that 67% of Harris supporters believe abortion access is “very important — nearly double the share of Biden voters who said this four years ago, though somewhat lower than the share of midterm Democratic voters who said this in 2022 (74%).

“And about a third of Trump supporters (35%) now say abortion is very important to their vote — 11 points lower than in 2020.”

In addition to playing some role in the presidential election, voters in 10 states — Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York and South Dakota — will weigh in on abortion access directly through ballot questions.

Congress could supersede any protections or restrictions on abortion access established within states, if the House and Senate ever agree on legislation and a future president signs it into law.

Republicans are slightly favored to gain control of the Senate for the next two years following the election, while control of the House is considered a toss-up, as is the presidential race.

Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com. Follow Arkansas Advocate on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Nearly 30 million Americans by Thursday had cast their ballots ahead of Election Day, with 13 million choosing to vote in person at early voting centers and another 17 million submitting mail-in ballots, according to data from the University of Florida’s election lab.

The total number of early votes is expected to increase significantly in the days leading up to Election Day on Nov. 5.

Voters will determine whether Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris or Republican candidate Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office for the next four years. On the national level, they’ll also decide which political party controls the U.S. House and U.S. Senate for the next two years.

The nonpartisan Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics say the presidential race is still very much up for grabs, rating the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin as toss-ups.

Early voting is higher in several of those purple states than some of their counterparts, according to data from the University of Florida’s election lab.

Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia have each received at least 1.2 million early ballots, while California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas have all received at least 2 million early votes.

The University of Florida data shows that among states that disclose party breakdowns, Democrats have cast nearly 42% of ballots while Republicans have submitted 35% and other voters have sent in about 23%.

U.S. House control up in the air

Sabato’s Crystal Ball projects that Republicans are at least slightly favored to win 212 House seats, with Democrats holding onto at least 209 seats in that chamber. Another 14 races are rated as toss-ups, meaning control of the chamber is still far from decided.

“Overall, our ratings show just 7 Republican-held Toss-ups and 7 Democratic-held Toss-ups, for 14 total,” Managing Editor Kyle Kondik and Associate Editor J. Miles Coleman wrote in the latest update, released Thursday morning.

“Splitting the Toss-ups down the middle would produce a 219-216 Republican House, so the ratings technically have the Republicans very narrowly ahead—but neither side is favored in the race for the House majority, even at this late stage,” they wrote.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Suzan DelBene of Washington state told reporters Thursday the organization has several voter protection efforts underway to ensure Americans who want to vote have an opportunity to do so.

Those efforts won’t stop when the polls close on Election Day, but will continue as absentee ballots are counted, she said in a virtual meeting with the Regional Reporters Association.

“So this is obviously a priority for us, and some of these races are very, very close, so we want to make sure we’re there to help make sure ballots are counted across the country,” DelBene said.

Control of the House might not be announced on election night, or for several days afterward. It took more than a week after the 2022 midterm elections before The Associated Press called control for the GOP.

U.S. Senate tilts toward GOP

The Senate is leaning slightly toward Republican control, with GOP candidates on track to pick up seats in West Virginia and Montana.

Sabato’s has, however, moved Nebraska’s rating from likely Republican to leans Republican, “as the Republican cavalry has had to ride in to help” incumbent GOP Sen. Deb Fischer maintain her seat against independent challenger Dan Osborn.

“Unlike Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rick Scott (R-FL), the only other two GOP incumbents in races that we rate as something other than Safe Republican, Fischer has, arguably, never had to run in a legitimately competitive statewide general election,” Kondik and Coleman wrote.

Early in-person voting as well as who is eligible for mail-in ballots is determined by each state, meaning when and where voters can cast early ballots varies considerably.

All states are required to host in-person voting on Election Day, scheduled for Nov. 5. More information about voting can be found here.

Rhode Island Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Rhode Island Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janine L. Weisman for questions: info@rhodeislandcurrent.com. Follow Rhode Island Current on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump said Monday that if reelected he plans to work “side by side” with a newly formed religious organization that says abortion is the “greatest atrocity facing” the United States and should be “eradicated entirely.”

During two-minute recorded remarks played at The Danbury Institute’s inaugural Life & Liberty Forum in Indianapolis, Trump avoided using the word “abortion,” but said he hopes to protect “innocent life” if reelected in November.

“We have to defend religious liberty, free speech, innocent life, and the heritage and tradition that built America into the greatest nation in the history of the world,” Trump said. “But now we are, as you know, a declining nation.”

Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, said that he hopes to work alongside the institute to defend those values.

“These are going to be your years because you’re going to make a comeback like just about no other group,” Trump said. “I know what’s happening. I know where you’re coming from and where you’re going. And I’ll be with you side by side.”

Trump also called on The Danbury Institute and church members to vote for him during the November presidential election, saying that President Joe Biden and Democrats are “against religion.”

Biden-Harris 2024 spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a written statement released before Trump’s message was played that a second term for him “is sure to bring more extreme abortion bans with no exceptions, women punished for seeking the care they need, and doctors criminalized for providing care.”

“Women can and will stop him by reelecting President Biden and Vice President Harris this November,” Chitika wrote.

Abortion position

The Danbury Institute writes on its website that it opposes abortion from “the moment of conception, meaning that each pre-born baby would be treated with the same protection under the law as born people.”

“The intentional, pre-meditated killing of a pre-born child should be addressed with laws already in place concerning homicide,” its website states. “We also support bolstering the foster care system and encouraging Christian adoption and are working with churches around the country to help them become equipped to care for children in need of loving families.”

Another section of the Danbury Institute’s website states the organization believes, “the greatest atrocity facing our generation today is the practice of abortion—child sacrifice on the altar of self.”

“Abortion must be ended,” the website states. “We will not rest until it is eradicated entirely.”

The website doesn’t mention if the organization supports exceptions in cases of rape, incest or the woman’s life, nor does it say if women who receive abortions should be protected from criminal prosecution. The institute did not return a request from States Newsroom seeking to clarify if it supports any or all of those three exceptions.

The institute writes on its website that it “does not endorse any candidate for public office nor participate in political campaign activities. Contributions to The Danbury Institute are not used for political campaigning and are conducted in accordance with IRS regulations for nonprofit organizations.”

Florida minister takes issue with abortion letter

Tom Ascol, president of Founders Ministries in Florida, spoke on a panel discussion about the “Sanctity of Life” at Monday’s event, during which he said “abortion is the greatest evil of this nation in our day.”

Ascol also appeared frustrated with a public letter released by dozens of anti-abortion organizations in May 2022, arguing that no laws should criminalize women who have abortions. He took particular exception to the acting president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission signing his name to the document.

Noem dodges CNN questions on abortion exceptions and election certification

“It grieves me that when there was legislation before the Louisiana legislature that had a real opportunity to be passed, because there were lawmakers that were willing to go forward … that 75 pro-life organizations penned an open letter, including the leader of our Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Brent Leatherwood, who attached his name to that letter, saying, ‘We do not think that any legislature should criminalize abortion to the degree that those who offer their bodies up to be given over to abortion would be held liable,’” Ascol said during the conference.

That letter was released the same day in 2022 that state lawmakers in Louisiana were debating House Bill 813, which had been on track to criminalize women who receive abortions in addition to the doctors who provide them. Prosecutors would have been able to charge the women with murder.

Louisiana lawmakers instead opted to rework the language of the original bill to replace it with another anti-abortion measure that didn’t include criminal penalties for women who receive abortions.

Ascol said he believed the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission must say publicly if “the goal (is) the abolition of abortion. And if it is and they’re sincere, then okay, let’s work together.”

“If we can do that, I think we can have some opportunity for coalition building,” Ascol said. “If we get more of these open letters by so-called pro-life organizations helping to spike legitimate legislation, then I think we’re going to continue to see the fragmentation and understandably so.”

National Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony List and Americans United for Life were among the organizations that signed the May 2022 letter.

Trump and abortion, contraception

Trump’s comments to The Danbury Institute on Monday didn’t clear up the confusion stemming from his comments to news organizations during the past few months.

Trump said during an interview with TIME Magazine published in April that his campaign would be releasing a policy in the weeks that followed on access to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen approved for up to 10 weeks gestation.

Former lawmaker Turbak Berry will lead new group supporting abortion-rights amendment

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain,” Trump said, according to the transcript of the interview. “I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week.”

That policy had not been released as of Monday.

Medication abortion, which include mifepristone and misoprostol, makes up about 63% of pregnancy terminations within the United States, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute.

U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a case about mifepristone’s use in late March and are expected to publish their ruling before the Fourth of July.

During an interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station in May, Trump hinted that he might be open to states limiting or banning access to contraception, though he walked back his remarks the same day in a social media post.

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting,” Trump said on KDKA after being asked if he could support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception. “It’s another issue that’s very interesting. But you will find it very smart. I think it’s a smart decision, but we’ll be releasing it very soon.”

Trump later posted on social media that he never had and never would “ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives.”

Trump’s campaign had not released a policy on contraception as of Monday.

U.S. Senate vote on IVF set this week

Access to reproductive health care, including contraception and IVF, has become a recurring issue in the U.S. Senate ahead of November’s elections, with Democrats seeking to put GOP members on the record.

The Senate tried to pass legislation last week that would have provided protections for access to contraception, but the vast majority of the chamber’s Republicans voted against advancing that bill.

Access to contraception is currently protected by two U.S. Supreme Court cases — Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird — where the justices ruled that Americans’ privacy rights allow them to make those decisions for themselves.

Democrats and reproductive rights advocates are concerned that the justices could eventually overturn those two cases the same way the court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The Senate is set to vote this week on legislation guaranteeing access to in vitro fertilization, though GOP senators are expected to block that bill as well.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: info@southdakotasearchlight.com. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and Twitter.