The Republican presidential nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump, on Tuesday, Oct. 15, spoke to the Economic Club of Chicago. In this photo, he speaks to attendees during a campaign rally at the Mosack Group warehouse on Sept. 25 in Mint Hill, North Carolina (Brandon Bell/Getty Images).

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump defended his plans for steep tariffs on Tuesday, arguing economists who say that those higher costs would get passed onto consumers are incorrect and that his proposals would benefit American manufacturing.

During an argumentative hour-long interview with Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait hosted by the Economic Club of Chicago, Trump vehemently denied tariffs on certain imported goods would lead to further spikes in inflation and sour America’s relationship with allies, including those in Europe.

“The higher the tariff, the more likely it is that the company will come into the United States, and build a factory in the United States so it doesn’t have to pay the tariff,” Trump said.

Micklethwait questioned Trump about what would happen to consumer prices during the months or even years it would take companies to build factories in the United States and hire workers.

Trump responded that he could make tariffs “so high, so horrible, so obnoxious that they’ll come right away.” Earlier during the interview, Trump mentioned placing tariffs on foreign-made products as high as 100% or 200%.

Smoot-Hawley memories

Micklethwait noted during the interview that 40 million jobs and 27% of gross domestic product within the United States rely on trade, questioning how tariffs on those products would help the economy.

He also asked Trump if his plans for tariffs could lead the country down a similar path to the one that followed the Smoot-Hawley tariff law becoming law in June 1930. Signed by President Herbert Hoover, some historians and economists have linked the law to the beginning of the Great Depression.

Trump disagreed with Micklethwait, though he didn’t detail why his proposals to increase tariffs on goods from adversarial nations as well as U.S. allies wouldn’t begin a trade war.

The U.S. Senate’s official explainer on the Smoot-Hawley tariffs describes the law as being “among the most catastrophic acts in congressional history.” And the Congressional Research Services notes in a report on U.S. tariff policy that it was the last time lawmakers set tariff rates.

Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, wrote last month that Trump’s proposal to implement tariffs of at least 60% on goods imported from China as well as 10 to 20% on all other imports could have severe economic consequences.

“It is difficult to see how such a unilateral trade policy in flagrant violation of World Trade Organization rules would not lead to retaliation by our trade partners with import tariff increases of their own,” Lachman wrote. “As in the 1930s, that could lead us down the destructive path of beggar-my-neighbor trade policies that could cause major disruption to the international trade system. Such an occurrence would be particularly harmful to our export industries and would heighten the chances of both a US and worldwide economic recession.”

CRS notes in its reports that while the Constitution grants Congress the authority to establish tariffs, lawmakers have given the president some authority over it as well.

The United States’ membership in the World Trade Organization and various other trade agreements also have “tariff-related commitments,” according to CRS.

“For more than 80 years, Congress has delegated extensive tariff-setting authority to the President,” the CRS report states. “This delegation insulated Congress from domestic pressures and led to an overall decline in global tariff rates. However, it has meant that the U.S. pursuit of a low-tariff, rules-based global trading system has been the product of executive discretion. While Congress has set negotiating goals, it has relied on Presidential leadership to achieve those goals.”

The presidency and the Fed

Trump said during the interview that he believes the president should have more input into whether the Federal Reserve raises or lowers interest rates, though he didn’t answer a question about keeping Jerome Powell as the chairman through the end of his term.

“I think I have the right to say I think he should go up or down a little bit,” Trump said. “I don’t think I should be allowed to order it. But I think I have the right to put in comments as to whether or not interest rates should go up or down.”

Trump declined to answer a question about whether he’s spoken with Russian leader Vladimir Putin since leaving office.

“I don’t comment on that,” Trump said. “But I will tell you that if I did, it’s a smart thing. If I’m friendly with people, if I have a relationship with people, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.”

Journalist Bob Woodward wrote in his new book “War” that Trump and Putin have spoken at least seven times and that Trump secretly sent Putin COVID-19 tests during the pandemic, which the Kremlin later confirmed, according to several news reports.

Trump said the presidential race will likely come down to Pennsylvania, Michigan and possibly Arizona.

The Economic Club of Chicago has also invited Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris for a sit-down interview.

People toss buckets of water out of a home as the streets and homes are flooded near Peachtree Creek after Hurricane Helene brought in heavy rains over night on Sept. 27 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Megan Varner/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Hurricane season has not only wreaked havoc on people’s lives throughout much of the country, but could also make it more difficult for voters to cast their ballots in hard-hit regions.

Other election threats include misinformation and even terrorism, with warnings from the Department of Homeland Security and an arrest in Oklahoma allegedly connected with an Election Day plot.

Election officials in states regularly affected by hurricane season have considerable experience ensuring residents can vote following natural disasters, but those in other parts of the country less accustomed to the destruction this year are learning as they go.

Voters used to a quick drive to their polling place or a drop box might need to spend more time getting there amid washed-out roads, while some may be so bogged down in rebuilding their lives, they simply choose not to cast a ballot. Regular mail service may be disrupted for mail-in ballots.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said earlier this week he didn’t expect recovery from Hurricane Helene to have a significant impact on voting, lauding county election officials for troubleshooting power outages and a loss of internet during the storm, the Georgia Recorder reported.

Local election officials throughout the state, he said, were ready to ship mail-in ballots on time and didn’t expect any delays to the start of early voting on Oct. 15.

County election officials “really put public service first because they understand how important voting is in 53 counties that so far have been declared federal disaster areas,” he said during a press briefing.

North Carolina’s Board of Elections has implemented changes in 13 counties that will make it easier for residents there to vote by absentee ballot, NC Newsline reported. The emergency measures, adopted unanimously, also allow elections officials to increase outreach to voters and set up alternative voting locations to avoid using locations that were damaged or are inaccessible.

Elections Director Karen Brinson Bell said during that board meeting she expects early voting will still begin on Oct. 17 as previously planned.

“These measures will help eligible voters in the affected areas cast their ballot either in person or by mail,” Brinson Bell said. “They will help county boards of election in western North Carolina administer this election under extraordinarily difficult conditions.”

In Florida, where residents barely began addressing damage from Hurricane Helene before Hurricane Milton emerged, there are disagreements about how best to proceed, the Florida Phoenix reported.

The League of Women Voters of Florida Education Fund and the Florida State Conference of the NAACP have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to extend the voter registration deadline, which ended on Monday.

The organizations argue that Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis should have allowed more time for voter registration, since residents have been focused on storm preparation, evacuation and recovery.

“While issuing mandatory evacuation orders, he has refused to extend the voter registration deadline, disenfranchising many Floridians who were unable to register due to a disaster beyond their control,” the organizations wrote in a statement. “Voters should not have to worry about registering to vote while they are trying to protect their lives and communities.”

Elections and artificial intelligence

In Kentucky, elections officials are warning state lawmakers that artificial intelligence has the “potential for significant impact” on elections in the months and years ahead, the Kentucky Lantern reported.

Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams urged lawmakers during a meeting of the General Assembly’s Artificial Intelligence Task Force to take the technology seriously.

“Should you take up AI legislation when you return in 2025, I would encourage you to consider prohibiting impersonation of election officials,” Adams said during the meeting. “It is illegal to impersonate a peace officer, and for good reason. It should be equally illegal to impersonate a secretary of state or county clerk and put out false information in any format about our elections.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a report earlier this month saying officials expected “state actors will continue to pose a host of threats to the Homeland and public safety,” including through artificial intelligence.

“Specifically, China, Iran, and Russia will use a blend of subversive, undeclared, criminal, and coercive tactics to seek new opportunities to undermine confidence in US democratic institutions and domestic social cohesion,” the 46-page report states.

“Advances in AI likely will enable foreign adversaries to increase the output, timeliness, and perceived authenticity of their mis-, dis-, and malinformation designed to influence US audiences while concealing or distorting the origin of the content.”

Terrorism and the election 

DHS also expects threats from terrorism to remain high throughout the year, including around the elections, according to the report.

“Lone offenders and small groups continue to pose the greatest threat of carrying out attacks with little to no warning,” the report states.

That appears to be the case in Oklahoma, where federal officials allege a 27-year-old Afghanistan national living in the state purchased an AK-47 and ammunition as part of a plot to conduct an attack on Election Day in the name of ISIS, the Oklahoma Voice reported.

Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi and a co-conspirator under the age of 18 allegedly met with an FBI asset in rural western Oklahoma to purchase two AK-47 assault rifles, 10 magazines and 500 rounds of ammunition, according to the criminal complaint.

An FBI search of Tawhedi’s phone found communications with a person who Tawhedi believed was affiliated with ISIS. He also “allegedly accessed, viewed, and saved ISIS propaganda on his iCloud and Google account, participated in pro-ISIS Telegram groups, and contributed to a charity which fronts for and funnels money to ISIS,” according to the complaint.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign has sought to blame Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris for Tawhedi’s presence within the United States.

Trump Campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt released a written statement claiming that Harris “rolled out the red carpet for terrorists like Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi.”

“President Donald Trump will deport illegal immigrants on the terror watch list and secure our borders from foreign threats,” Leavitt wrote.

Tawhedi entered the United States on Sept. 9, 2021, on a special immigrant visa and “is currently on parole status pending adjudication of his immigration proceedings,” according to the criminal complaint.

The co-defendant is Tawhedi’s wife’s younger brother. While unnamed because he is a juvenile, the criminal complaint says he is a citizen of Afghanistan with legal permanent resident status who entered the United States on March 27, 2018, on a special immigrant visa.

Leavitt’s statement didn’t comment on the co-defendant entering the United States during the Trump administration.

Harris has not yet commented publicly on the arrest.

(Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Republicans are struggling to recruit and elect women to Congress, lagging behind Democrats in ensuring women, who make up half the population, have a strong voice in the halls of power, experts on women in politics said Tuesday.

“This year’s data shows clearly that Republican women are falling behind in candidacies, nominations and even primary contest success,” Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said on a call with reporters.

Democratic women, on the other hand, “are not only outperforming their male counterparts, but are also reaching near parity with Democratic men in nominations and office holding.”

The 435-member U.S. House currently has 126 women, 34 of whom are Republicans. The 100-member Senate has 25 female lawmakers, with nine belonging to the GOP.

CAWP Director of Data Chelsea Hill explained on the call that while women overall account for just 31.1% of general election nominees for the House, the breakdown shows a stark difference for Democratic and Republican politicians.

“Women continue to be significantly underrepresented as a percentage of all U.S. House and Senate candidates and nominees,” Hill said. “But Republican women are a significantly smaller percentage of their party’s candidates and nominees than are Democratic women.”

Democratic women running for the House represent 45.9% of candidates within their party, coming close to parity with their male colleagues and increasing female candidate percentages over 2022, she said.

Republican women, however, make up 16.2% of GOP House candidates this election cycle, a lower share than during 2020 and 2022, Hill said.

In the Senate, female candidates account for 30.9% of general election nominees, with a similar split between Democrats and Republicans.

Democratic women account for 46.9% of the party’s candidates for that chamber of Congress, also near parity, though women make up 17.6% of Republican Senate nominees, “a smaller share than in the three previous cycles,” according to Hill.

Why are fewer Republican women running?

CAWP experts said the difference in female candidates is predominantly due to structural differences as well as differing beliefs about the importance of women holding office among leadership and voters.

CAWP Director of Research Kelly Dittmar said if party leadership doesn’t believe women’s underrepresentation in government is a problem in need of a solution, that will make “it hard to build the type of support infrastructure — whether it be for women’s PACs, trainings, recruitment programs — that would ensure that those numbers stay high.”

Dittmar said one example of this was House Republican leaders’ decision to roll a program called “Project Grow” that was aimed at recruiting female GOP lawmakers into the “Young Guns” program, which is focused more on general recruitment.

“Young Guns” is also the title of a book published in 2010 by former House Republican leaders Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy, all of whom are men.

Dittmar said the evolution of the Republican Party under former President Donald Trump and the change in abortion access stemming from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 are not significant factors accounting for the lower numbers of female Republican candidates.

“I would suggest that when we get to the candidate level, there are enough conservative Republican women in the country that could be recruited and supported as candidates,” Dittmar said.

Walsh said one of the reasons GOP leaders don’t focus on recruiting and encouraging women in public office is that there is a “reluctance” within the Republican Party to engage in identity politics.

“The Democratic Party places value on that, versus the Republican Party, which says the best candidate will rise to the top and let the best person win,” Walsh said. “So it is a deeply philosophical difference that plays out in candidate recruitment, candidate support.”

Dittmar added that Democrats aren’t necessarily recruiting and advancing female candidates “out of the goodness of their hearts,” but are doing so because it’s expected by their voters.

“There’s an electoral incentive, partly due to the gender gap in voting, as well as racial and ethnic differences in terms of the Democratic base, where there is more demand on the Democratic Party to say, ‘Look, we’re bringing you votes, you need to prioritize and value this level of representation.’”

The Rocky Broad River flows into Lake Lure and overflows the town with debris from Chimney Rock, North Carolina after heavy rains from Hurricane Helene on Sept. 28, 2024, in Lake Lure, North Carolina. Approximately 6 feet of debris piled on the bridge from Lake Lure to Chimney Rock, blocking access (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON —   Federal Emergency Management Agency Administrator Deanne Criswell said Tuesday that rumors and disinformation will become a regular part of natural disaster response moving forward, and rebuked those seeking to benefit politically from spreading false information.

The volume and type of disinformation spreading about FEMA, as Southeast states struggle to recover from Hurricane Helene, is the worst Criswell said she has ever seen, following a “steady increase” in rumors following previous natural disasters.

Incorrect information about FEMA and its response to natural disasters has been spreading through numerous avenues, including social media, podcasts and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s numerous comments and posts. Criswell did not name any politicians or other individuals during the call with reporters.

Meanwhile, Hurricane Milton is barrelling toward Florida’s Gulf Coast and expected to make landfall by Wednesday night. Meteorologists are warning the storm could be one of Florida’s worst. Thousands of people were evacuating Tuesday.

Criswell said she’s concerned the lies about various aspects of FEMA’s response to Hurricane Helene may have a chilling effect on whether people harmed by natural disasters apply for assistance. It could also potentially endanger first responders on the ground.

“It’s just really demoralizing to them. It hurts their morale and they’ve left their families to be able to come in here and help people,” she said of first responders and FEMA staff.

While no one has physically attacked FEMA staff or other emergency responders so far, Criswell said, she and others are closely monitoring misinformation as well as how people in areas hit by natural disasters react to it.

FEMA’s collaboration with local law enforcement can help to monitor safety and security issues, though rumors and disinformation could make matters worse, she said.

“If it creates so much fear that my staff don’t want to go out in the field, then we’re not going to be in a position where we can help people,” Criswell said, adding that she does have concerns about “the safety of our folks that are walking around in neighborhoods that may or may not have full confidence in the government.”

“And so we are watching that closely to make sure that we’re providing for their safety as well,” she said.

Helene brought devastation to multiple states including Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and  Virginia.  More than 230 deaths have been reported.

Storm victims

The rumors and inaccurate information about FEMA’s response and recovery efforts are “creating fear in some” people who are trying to navigate their way through the hurricane recovery process, Criswell said.

“I worry that they won’t apply for assistance, which means I can’t get them the necessary items they need,” Criswell said. “And so those are the biggest impacts I see as a result of this constant narrative that is more about politics than truly helping people.”

She said the current situation is worse than ever.

“We have always put up rumor control pages because there’s always been people that have been out there trying to take advantage of those that have just lost so much in creating false websites and trying to get their information and defrauding people and the federal government,” Criswell said. “And so not something that’s new, but the level of rhetoric just continues to rise.”

Following the Maui wildfires in August 2023, federal officials worked with local officials to help reassure Hawaiians the rumors and disinformation that spread following that disaster were not true.

Some of the disinformation about the Maui wildfires was from “foreign state actors,” Criswell said.

FEMA was eventually able to get federal assistance to everyone who needed it, but it took much longer than it would have otherwise, she said.

The first assistance people in hard-hit areas often receive from FEMA is a $750 payment meant to help with immediate needs like water, food, clothing and medicine.

There has been significant misinformation around that amount. Criswell clarified on the call that it’s the first installment from FEMA and that more assistance goes out to people affected by natural disasters as the recovery process moves forward.

“We know that they have immediate needs in the first few days, and it’s just an initial jump start to help them replace some of that,” Criswell said.

As FEMA gathers more information about property damage and other problems related to natural disasters, people will likely receive additional assistance for home repairs as well as the cost of staying in a hotel if their home was badly damaged.

FEMA then continues to work with people on longer-term needs, like rental assistance, if that’s needed.

FEMA has set up a webpage seeking to dispel rumors and disinformation about its response and recovery efforts.

It says that in most cases the money FEMA gives to disaster survivors does not have to be paid back and notes that the agency “cannot seize your property or land.”

“There are some less common situations in which you may have to pay FEMA back if you receive duplicate benefits from insurance or a grant from another source. For example, if you have insurance that covers your temporary housing costs, but you ask FEMA to advance you some money to help you pay for those costs while your insurance is delayed, you will need to pay that money back to FEMA after you receive your insurance settlement.”

The webpage also says that no funding for disaster recovery was diverted to address border security or immigration issues.

“This is false. No money is being diverted from disaster response needs. FEMA’s disaster response efforts and individual assistance is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund, which is a dedicated fund for disaster efforts. Disaster Relief Fund money has not been diverted to other, non-disaster related efforts.”

Funding questions

FEMA has plenty of funding to cover response and recovery efforts for the 100-plus open natural disasters throughout the country, but will need supplemental funding from Congress in the months ahead.

“I have enough funding to continue to support the response efforts for both of these events, and then continue to support the recovery efforts from all of the storms across the nation,” Criswell said, referring to Hurricanes Helene and Milton.

“However, I’m not going to be able to support those recoveries for long without a supplemental,” she added. “And we anticipate needing additional funding in the December, January time frame, or I’ll have to go back into what we call immediate needs funding again, where we pause obligations in our recovery projects to ensure that I can respond to an event like we’re seeing today.”

The first step for Congress to approve emergency funding for FEMA or any other federal agency is typically when the Office of Management and Budget sends a supplemental spending request to lawmakers on behalf of the White House.

Lawmakers can then choose to write legislation providing some, all, or more money than requested. They can also choose not to fund the emergency request, though that appears unlikely this time.

For the moment, FEMA has about $20 billion in its disaster relief fund, she said.

People who need assistance from FEMA should call 1-800-621-3362, register on https://www.disasterassistance.gov/ or fill out an application on the FEMA app.

Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, joined by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, speaks at the Capitol on Sept. 29, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans shortly after Election Day will face a major decision for their chamber as well as the national party when they pick a new leader.

Once the dust from the election clears and the balance of power in the Senate is decided, senators will gather behind closed doors to choose who will lead their conference. Come January, that person will step into one of the more important and influential roles in the U.S. government, as well as becoming a prominent figure for messaging and fundraising for the GOP.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Florida Sen. Rick Scott and South Dakota Sen. John Thune have all publicly announced they’re seeking the post. Thune is currently the minority whip, the No. 2 leader in the Senate GOP, and Cornyn held the whip job before him.

The lawmaker who secures the support of his colleagues will replace Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who since 2007 has led his party through three presidencies, numerous votes on natural disaster aid packages, the COVID-19 pandemic, two impeachments and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

McConnell, who served as majority leader when Republicans controlled the Senate, has been at the center of dozens of pivotal negotiations and ensured his position was a boon for his home state of Kentucky.

The Republican who takes his place will have to navigate choppy political seas in the years ahead as the GOP continues to hold onto the Reagan-era policies many still value, while adjusting to the brand of conservatism that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump champions.

States Newsroom interviewed Republican senators to find out what characteristics they believe the next GOP leader needs to have to earn their vote, and about the challenges that person will face in the years ahead.

While only one senator would volunteer an opinion on a favorite candidate, many said they are interested in a leader who will emphasize moving legislation through the chamber, listen closely to members and forge strong ties with what they hope is a Trump administration.

In search of a workhorse 

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said he’s looking for a “competent” Republican leader who will listen to members and work behind the scenes.

“I don’t want to see leaders on television commercials, I don’t want to see them featured in Senate races, I don’t want them as the deciding factor days before an election,” Hawley said. “I want somebody who is going to be a workhorse and who’s going to work with members to achieve our priorities and then get stuff accomplished.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said the next GOP leader should hold the line on conservative priorities while also being able to negotiate bipartisan deals during what is expected to be a divided government. Democrats narrowly control the Senate, but Republicans are projected to possibly take the majority in the election.

“I would like somebody who can be strong in the face of opposition, present a strong argument, not afraid to take it to the other side when needed, but then also somebody that could get in the room and negotiate right when it gets tough,” she said.

Capito acknowledged the outcome of the presidential election could have an impact on who becomes the next Republican leader.

“(It) just depends on who wins,” she said.

Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall said his choice will “be the most important vote that I take.”

“You vote for the president, that’s important, but mine is one vote out of 150 million votes, or whatever it is. But this vote will be one out of, hopefully 53, so I think it has a lot of weight,” Marshall said. “And I think it’s really important that we elect a majority leader that shares the same priorities as, hopefully, President Trump.”

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty said the overarching criteria for the next GOP leader is their “ability to get along well with President Trump and the incoming administration.”

“The first 100 days are going to count, and we need to have very close alignment to make certain we’re successful,” Hagerty said.

There is no guarantee that voters will elect Trump as the next president during this year’s presidential election. The next Senate GOP leader could end up working with an administration led by the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris.

That would require whomever Republican senators elect to walk a tightrope on Cabinet secretary confirmation votes, judicial nominees, must-pass legislation and potentially a Supreme Court nominee.

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said he’s vetting the candidates based on which one would be the most savvy, strategic, patient and inclusive.

That person, Kennedy said, must also be “willing to test his assumptions against the arguments of his critics and willing to ask God for money if necessary.” McConnell has been known as a prodigious fundraiser for Republicans.

Chairmanship clout

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said she’ll vote for the candidate willing to devote significantly more floor time to debating and voting on bipartisan legislation.

“I think that’s a real problem,” Collins said. “I’d like us to go back to the days where power was vested in the committee chairs. And if they and their ranking members are able to produce a bill, that it gets scheduled for floor consideration.”

Collins, a moderate in a Senate conference packed with more conservative members, said she wants the next Senate Republican leader to recognize “that we’re a big tent party and that we need to be inclusive in our approach.”

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven, the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, said he wants a GOP leader to follow “regular order on appropriations.”

“We get them through committee with bipartisan votes, but they’re not getting to the floor,” Hoeven said of the dozen annual government funding bills. “We need to get them to the floor, there needs to be an amendment process, and we need to act on the bills and get back to voting on bills and that’s called regular order. And I think that’s the biggest key for our next leader is to be able to do that.”

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt has begun talking with the candidates and is evaluating their plans for the Senate floor schedule, especially for bringing the annual government funding bills up for debate and amendment.

“I want to know how we’re going to get the appropriations process back working; like, how we’re actually going to move the ball down the field on that,” Britt said. “I want to know how we’re going to actually embolden the committees and the committee process.”

Britt, ranking member on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, expressed frustration with how much floor time goes toward confirming judicial nominees, something that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and McConnell have both championed.

Senate floor procedures are much more time-consuming than the rules that govern debate in the House. Legislation can take weeks to move through the filibuster process, which requires 60 votes for bills to advance, and for leaders to negotiate which amendments will receive floor votes.

The Senate, unlike the House, is also responsible for vetting and confirming executive branch nominees, like Cabinet secretaries, as well as judicial nominees. With a new president in place, 2025 will mean many confirmation votes.

“When we have a leader that really knows how to lead, they’ll put appropriations bills on the floor, they’ll figure out how to embolden members,” Britt said, adding that “a weak leader consolidates all the power, and that’s, unfortunately, what I think we have right now when it comes to Chuck Schumer.”

‘Getting stuff done’

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said whomever he votes for needs to “be successful at getting stuff done, finished, completed.”

“We have to be able to get our committees working and get legislation up, negotiated and moved,” Lankford said.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst said whoever takes over as the next GOP leader must be able to communicate well with senators.

That person “needs to be someone that has strategy, and knows how to work the floor, certainly. And then, also fundraising is a portion of that, too.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said his vote will go to the person he believes can best build consensus and listen to members, though he hasn’t yet decided which of the three contenders he’ll support.

“I’m a true undecided,” Boozman said. “I think the reality is most members just want to get the election over. They don’t want to deal with this until then.”

Boozman said the results of the battle for control of the Senate in the November elections could influence which candidate he and his colleagues pick to lead them during the next Congress.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that the next GOP leader should be in tune with Republican voters and the issues important to them.

“It’s someone who I think has an affinity and is in touch with where our voters are,” Rubio said.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley declined to list off any characteristics he believes the next leader needs, saying he doesn’t want any of the three to figure out his choice.

“I wouldn’t want to tell you that, because this is what I told all three people that came to my office — I said, ‘I’m not going to tell either one of you. You’re all friends of mine. You ain’t going to know who I vote for,’” Grassley said. “And if I answered your question, they’re going to start figuring out who I’m going to vote for.”

Grassley said the next leader’s first major challenge will be negotiating a tax bill during 2025 that addresses expiring elements from the 2017 Republican tax law.

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said character matters in determining who he’ll vote for, but said he hadn’t created a score sheet just yet.

“I’ll have an idea of who I’m voting for before the November election,” Moran said. “Those characteristics that I think are important would be important regardless of what the makeup of the House, Senate and the White House is.”

Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson threw his support behind Scott for GOP leader, saying he prefers someone who previously served as a governor and worked in the private sector. He was the only senator interviewed by States Newsroom to reveal his vote, which will be conducted via secret ballot.

He said that Scott “is willing to tackle tough issues.”

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that Republicans have “a lot of good choices” among the three men and that he wants someone who can carry the GOP message.

A case of bird flu in a Missouri resident is the only diagnosis in the United States this year where the person did not have contact with infected dairy cattle or poultry (Stephen Ausmus/Animal Research Services, USDA).

WASHINGTON — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should have results later this month that provide more insight into how a Missouri resident, who hadn’t had any contact with infected animals or food, contracted a case of highly pathogenic avian influenza.

Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said on a call with reporters Friday the agency is working through its investigation of that bird flu case, while providing several more details.

“As we previously reported, CDC would be able to perform partial sequencing of the avian influenza H5 virus from the case in Missouri, despite a nearly undetectable level of viral RNA in the patient sample,” Daskalakis said.

That process is complex and time-consuming, in part because the patient had rather small amounts of the virus in their system when the test was taken.

Another contributing factor, he said, is “that the virus has two potentially important mutations, meaning two amino acid differences, in comparison with the viruses previously characterized during this event that could affect antigenicity.”

Daskalakis explained that antigenicity is when someone is able to produce “a specific immune response, such as creation of specific antibodies.”

Both the mutations and small sample size have presented challenges for the CDC, but the agency expects to announce results of the test later this month after completing the complicated lab process, he said.

Two cases in California

The Missouri case is the only bird flu diagnosis in the United States this year where the person hadn’t had direct contact with infected poultry or dairy cattle.

The remainder of the 16 people diagnosed with H5N1 during this calendar year had direct contact with farm animals, with nine of those cases linked to poultry and six related to dairy cows.

One of those cases was diagnosed in Texas, two in Michigan, two in California just this week and 10 in Colorado.

Public health officials on the call emphasized that the risk to the general public remains low and that several studies undertaken by the Food and Drug Administration show pasteurized dairy products as well as other foods remain safe to eat.

Since February, the CDC has tested more than 50,000 samples that would have “detected Influenza A, H5 or other novel influenza viruses,” Daskalakis said.

The Missouri case was the first case of bird flu detected through that influenza surveillance system, he said.

Public health officials at the state and federal level have been trying to determine how the Missouri patient, who officials are not identifying for their privacy, contracted the virus through a series of “intense interviews,” Daskalakis said.

That is how they learned someone living in the same house had been symptomatic with various gastrointestinal issues at the same time the patient had been ill.

That simultaneous onset of symptoms implied “a common exposure, rather than human-to-human transmission,” Daskalakis said, before reinforcing that the second person never tested positive for the virus and isn’t considered a case of bird flu.

“At the time of the interview, the household contact had also completely recovered and had not been tested for influenza while they were sick,” he said. “To be clear, there is only one case of H5N1 influenza detected in Missouri.”

Because the person living in the same house as the Missouri patient had been symptom-free for more than 10 days when they were interviewed by public health officials, Daskalakis said there was “no utility in testing the contact for acute influenza.”

Instead, officials in Missouri took blood samples from the two people so the CDC could test for “antibodies against H5 to assess for possible infection with this virus,” he said.

A separate investigation was taken at the hospital where the Missouri patient had been diagnosed to see if any health care workers had contracted H5N1.

Out of 118 health care workers who interacted with the patient in some way, 18 had higher-risk interactions before the patient was diagnosed and began using what Daskalakis referred to as “droplet precautions.”

Six of those health care workers later developed respiratory symptoms, though only one of them had symptoms by the time the public health investigation had begun retroactively, he said.

That one person’s PCR test for acute influenza came back negative and the other five health care workers, who had recovered, did not require a PCR test, he said.

“Since exposures could only be assessed retrospectively, Missouri has also obtained blood specimens from these individuals for antibody or serology testing at CDC to search for any evidence to support the unlikely possibility that their symptoms were related to H5 infection resulting from their interaction with the patient,” Daskalakis said. “Despite the low risk, this testing is important to complete the public health investigation of this case.”

The CDC began working on that serology testing in mid-September when it received the samples from Missouri, though the complicated process likely won’t conclude until later in October.

“For serology testing to be conclusive, it needs to be done using a virus that is genetically identical to the one obtained from the human case from Missouri or there is a risk of a false negative test,” Daskalakis said. “Since this H5 virus was not recoverable, we could not grow it because there was not enough for the Missouri specimen.”

The CDC, he explained, has to “create the right virus for the test using reverse genetics to match the one from Missouri, so that we can use it in these serology tests.”

“We realize people, including all of us at CDC, are anxious to see results from this testing,” he said. “CDC is moving at a very accelerated pace while conducting rigorous science to assure the validity of these results.”

Poultry, dairy cases

In addition to human cases, bird flu continues to infect poultry flocks and dairy herds within the United States.

While the poultry industry has had years of experience supplying its workers with personal protective equipment and culling affected farms, the dairy industry has had to figure out how to address the virus this year.

Eric Deeble, deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at USDA, said on the call Friday that Colorado’s mandatory testing program of bulk milk tanks, which began in July, offered a hopeful case study for ridding farms throughout the country of H5N1.

“Initially, this revealed a significant local prevalence, about 72% of dairies, centered in Weld County,” Deeble said.

But following months of hard work by farmers and public health officials, Colorado has just one dairy herd that’s currently affected by H5N1 out of 86 dairy herds within the state, he said.

“Mandatory surveillance in the state allows for continuous monitoring of herds and helps detect any instances of non-negative results early on, ensuring timely intervention,” Deeble said. “This decrease in Colorado cases, even in the absence of a vaccine, gives us further confidence that H5N1 can be eliminated in the national herd, even in places where we have seen an initial rapid increase in cases.”

Data from the USDA show that during the past month, three dairy herds in Idaho and 53 in California have tested positive for H5N1.

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress left Capitol Hill last week to focus their attention on the campaign trail during the six weeks leading up to Election Day, leaving much of their work unfinished.

The Republican House and Democratic Senate are scheduled to remain on recess until Nov. 12, though the urgent needs created in the wake of Hurricane Helene, which are fully funded for the moment, could bring the chambers back into session before then.

When lawmakers do return to Washington, D.C., they’ll need to address the must-pass legislation they’ve left on autopilot instead of negotiating new bipartisan compromises.

So far this year, lawmakers have pushed off reaching brokering agreement on must-pass measures like the farm bill as well as this year’s batch of government funding bills and the annual defense policy legislation.

Kids’ online safety, radiation exposure

There are also a handful of measures that have passed one chamber with broad bipartisan support, but haven’t been taken up on the other side of the Capitol that leadership could decide to move forward during November or December.

For example, an interesting combination of senators, led by Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, are advocating for House Republican leaders to hold votes on a pair of online safety bills designed to better protect children from the darker side of the internet.

The rail safety bill drafted by a bipartisan group of senators from Ohio and Pennsylvania after the train derailment in East Palestine remains unaddressed following more than a year of intransigence.

And legislation to reauthorize the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, which passed the Senate on a broadly bipartisan vote earlier this year, sits on a shelf collecting dust in the House.

Cancer victims, Indigenous communities and many others have pressed House GOP leadership to hold a vote to reauthorize the program after it expired this summer, but they have avoided it due to cost.

Five-week lame duck

Lawmakers interviewed by States Newsroom and congressional leaders all indicated the outcome of the November elections will have significant sway on what Congress approves during the five-week lame-duck session that spans November and December.

All interviews took place before Hurricane Helene made landfall and Israel was directly attacked by Iran, both of which are likely to be at the top of congressional leaders’ to-do lists.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune said it’s “hard to say” what, if anything, Congress will approve during the lame-duck session.

“I think a lot will be shaped by what happens in November,” the South Dakota Republican said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said just a day before Hurricane Helene made landfall that Democrats would advocate for passing natural disaster response funding previously requested by the Biden administration.

“Extreme weather events are on the rise and they affect everyone — in blue states, purple states and red states,” Jeffries said. “This is not a partisan issue, it’s an American issue in terms of being there, in times of need for everyday Americans, who have had their lives and livelihood upended.”

Other House Democratic priorities during the lame duck include approving the dozen full-year government funding bills that were supposed to be completed before Oct. 1, the defense policy bill that had the same deadline and the farm bill, which is more than a year overdue.

Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley said he “sure hopes” the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act reauthorization bill reaches the president’s desk before the end of the year.

He didn’t rule out lobbying to attach it to a must-pass government funding bill, but said the real hurdle is House GOP leaders.

“It doesn’t need help in the Senate. It just needs the House,” Hawley said. “I’ve had good, productive conversations with Speaker (Mike) Johnson in the last few weeks, and I appreciate his personal engagement on this, and I hope that that will lead to action.”

Haley said the House allowing RECA to expire, preventing people who qualify for the program from receiving benefits, was “outrageous.”

Defense priorities, farm bill

Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, said staff would work during October to bridge the differences between the two chambers on the annual defense policy bill, called the National Defense Authorization Act.

Those staff-level talks will lay the foundation for Republicans and Democrats to meet once they return to Capitol Hill following the elections.

“We have to be ready when we come back to go right to the ‘Big Four’ meeting,” he said, referring to the top leaders in both chambers. “That’s our objective.”

Reed said many of the differences between the House and the Senate aren’t typical Defense Department policy issues per se, but are “more political, cultural, social.”

Congress may begin to debate additional military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine this year, though that’s more likely to happen next year, Reed said.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said she was making a “big push” for the House and Senate to reach agreement on the farm bill in the months ahead, though she cautioned talks don’t actually constitute a conference.

“I wouldn’t call it a conference; technically to have a conference, you have to have a bill passed by the House and a bill passed by the Senate, which will not happen,” Stabenow said.

“But I believe that there is a way,” Stabenow added. “I believe there’s a way to get a bipartisan bill.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, the top Republican on the Agriculture panel, said lawmakers didn’t need the election results to “start working through our disagreements” on the farm bill, adding there’s some new momentum in talks.

“I think what’s changed is that there is a recognition among members, all members, how difficult it is right now as a farmer,” Boozman said. “So that’s really what’s changed in the last three or four months. It’s developing a real sense of urgency for these folks.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said the election outcome could influence what lawmakers choose to accomplish during the lame-duck session.

“There’s any number of scenarios, whether it’s NDAA, whether it’s farm bill, whether it’s anything else,” she said. “But it comes down to Leader Schumer.” New York Democrat Chuck Schumer is the majority leader in the Senate.

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine said he expects Congress will broker some agreement on government funding legislation and the NDAA, but not necessarily anything else.

“In an odd way, the better the Dems do on Nov. 5, the more we’ll get done,” Kaine said. “Because I think if the House is going to flip back to Dem, I think the Rs will say, ‘Well, let’s get a whole lot of stuff done before the House goes down.’ So I think the better we do, the more we’ll get done in the lame duck.”

Kaine said if Democrats do well in the elections, they might not need to approve additional aid for Ukraine this Congress, since that funding can last into next year.

“If we don’t do well in the (elections), we might need to do it in the lame duck,” Kaine said. “So that’ll all depend.”

A pro-Trump mob breaks into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan unsealed a lengthy and partly redacted motion Wednesday that charts special counsel Jack Smith’s final argument before November that former President Donald Trump acted in a private capacity when he co-conspired to overturn the 2020 election.

Much of the motion concerns Trump’s interactions with individuals in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as he sought to disrupt election results, Smith alleged.

The document, due on Chutkan’s desk late last month, is central to reanimating the case after months of delay as Trump argued for complete criminal immunity from the government’s fraud and obstruction charges related to his actions after the 2020 presidential contest, which Joe Biden won.

The U.S. Supreme Court returned Trump’s case to Chutkan after ruling that former presidents enjoy criminal immunity for core constitutional acts, presumed immunity for acts on the perimeter of official duties, and no immunity for personal ones. At that point it became clear that the case against the Republican presidential nominee would not be tried prior to Election Day.

Smith’s superseding indictment shortly thereafter retained all four felony counts against Trump, and Chutkan is tasked with parsing which allegations can stand in light of the Supreme Court decision.

In his unsealed 165-page motion, Smith outlines Trump’s alleged plots with private lawyers and political allies — names redacted — to ultimately deliver false slates of electors to Congress so that he appeared the winner over Biden in the seven states.

“Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted — a function in which the defendant, as President, had no official role,” Smith wrote.

Trump slammed the court filing on social media in numerous posts, writing in a mix of upper and lowercase letters that “Democrats are Weaponizing the Justice Department against me because they know I am WINNING, and they are desperate to prop up their failing Candidate, Kamala Harris.”

“The DOJ pushed out this latest ‘hit job’ today because JD Vance humiliated Tim Walz last night in the Debate. The DOJ has become nothing more than an extension of Joe’s, and now Kamala’s, Campaign. This is egregious PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, and should not have been released right before the Election,” he continued in just one of his many reactions on his platform, Truth Social.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, faced Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz, in a vice presidential debate on Tuesday night.

Here are key arguments from Smith’s filing, which alleges efforts by Trump and allies to subvert voters’ will during the last presidential election:

Arizona

Smith detailed calls to and communications with various Arizona officials, including the governor and speaker of the Arizona state House, arguing the interactions were made in Trump’s “capacity as a candidate.”

• “The defendant and his co-conspirators also demonstrated their deliberate disregard for the truth — and thus their knowledge of falsity — when they repeatedly changed the numbers in their baseless fraud allegations from day to day. At trial, the Government will introduce several instances of this pattern, in which the defendant and conspirators’ lies were proved by the fact that they made up figures from whole cloth. One example concerns the defendant and conspirators’ claims about non-citizen voters in Arizona. The conspirators started with the allegation that 36,000 non-citizens voted in Arizona; five days later, it was ‘beyond credulity that a few hundred thousand didn’t vote’: three weeks later, ‘the bare minimum [was] 40 or 50,000. The reality is about 250,000’; days after that, the assertion was 32,000; and ultimately the conspirators landed back where they started at 36,000 — a false figure that they never verified or corroborated.”

Georgia

Smith plans to introduce into evidence Trump’s communications, in his personal capacity, with Georgia’s attorney general, including a call on Dec. 8, 2020, and to the secretary of state.

• Trump “had early notice that his claims of election fraud in Georgia were false. Around mid-November, Campaign advisor [redacted] told the defendant that his claim that a large number of dead people had voted in Georgia was false. The defendant continued to press the claim anyway, including in a press appearance on November 29, when he suggested that a large enough number of dead voters had cast ballots to change the outcome of the election in Georgia.”

• “In the post-election period, [redacted] also took on the role of updating the defendant on a near-daily basis on the Campaign’s unsuccessful efforts to support any fraud claims…. He told the defendant that if the Campaign took these claims to court, they would get slaughtered, because the claims are all ‘bullshit.’ [Redacted] was privy in real time to the findings of the two expert consulting firms the Campaign retained to investigate fraud claims — [redacted] and [redacted] — and discussed with the defendant their debunkings on all major claims. For example, [redacted] told the defendant that Georgia’s audit disproved claims that [redacted] had altered votes.”

Michigan

The document details an Oval Office meeting Trump held with Michigan’s Senate majority leader and speaker of the House on Nov. 20, 2020, during which Trump tried to acquire evidence of voter fraud in Detroit.

• “Despite failing to establish any valid fraud claims, [redacted] followed up with [redacted] and [redacted] and attempted to pressure them to use the Michigan legislature to overturn the valid election result.”

Michigan and Pennsylvania

The filing said that directly following the 2020 election, Trump and his “private operatives sought to create chaos, rather than seek clarity, at polling places where states were continuing to tabulate votes.”

• “For example, on November 4, [redacted]—a Campaign employee, agent, and co-conspirator of the defendant—tried to sow confusion when the ongoing vote count at the TCF Center in Detroit, Michigan, looked unfavorable for the defendant.”

• “When a colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers Riot, a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida after the 2000 presidential election, [redacted] responded ‘Make them riot’ and ‘Do it!!!’ The defendant’s Campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers, including in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the defendant sometimes used the resulting confrontations to falsely claim that his election observers were being denied proper access, thus serving as a predicate to the defendant’s claim that fraud must have occurred in the observers’ absence.”

Michigan voting machines

Smith will argue that Trump, outside his official presidential duties, tried to persuade political allies in Michigan to sway the election in his favor.

• Among the evidence he will introduce: The former president held a meeting, “private in nature,” with Michigan legislators at the White House.

• Smith also wrote that “In mid-December, the defendant spoke with RNC Chairwoman [redacted] and asked her to publicize and promote a private report that had been related on December 13 that purported to identify flaws in the use of [redacted] machines in Antrim County, Michigan. [Redacted] refused, telling the defendant that she already had discussed this report with [redacted] Michigan’s Speaker of the House, who had told her that the report was inaccurate. [Redacted] conveyed to the defendant [redacted] exact assessment: the report was ‘f—— nuts.’”

Nevada

In Nevada, Trump allegedly ignored warnings about spreading lies about the state’s election results. Smith wrote: “Notwithstanding the RNC Chief Counsel’s warning, the defendant re-tweeted and amplified news of the lawsuit on November 24, calling it ‘Big News!’ that a Nevada Court had agreed to hear it. But the defendant did not similarly promote the fact that within two weeks, on December 4, the Nevada District Court dismissed Law v. Whitmer, finding in a detailed opinion that ‘there is no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud,’ including through the signature-match machines, and that Biden won the election in the state.”

• Trump continued to repeat false claims in tweets and speeches “as a candidate, not as an office holder,” Smith wrote.

Pennsylvania 

In the Keystone State, officials warned Trump there was no smoke and no fire related to election fraud in the commonwealth, Smith wrote.

• “Two days after the election, on November 6, the defendant called [redacted], the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party—the entity responsible for supporting Republican candidates in the commonwealth at the federal, state and local level. [Redacted] had a prior relationship with the defendant, including having represented him in litigation in Pennsylvania after the 2016 presidential election. The defendant asked [redacted] how, without fraud, he had gone from winning Pennsylvania on election day to trailing in the day afterward. Consistent with what Campaign staff already had told the defendant, [redacted] confirmed that it was not fraud; it was that there were roughly 1,750,000 mail-in ballots still being counted in Pennsylvania, which were expected to be eighty percent for Biden. Over the following two months, the defendant spread false claims of fraud in Pennsylvania anyway.”

• “In early November, in a Campaign meeting, when the defendant suggested that more people in Pennsylvania voted than had checked in to vote, Deputy Campaign Manager [redacted] corrected him.”

Wisconsin

Smith wrote Trump ignored reality in Wisconsin as well.

• “On November 29, a recount that the defendant’s campaign had petitioned and paid for confirmed that Biden had won in Wisconsin — and increased the defendant’s margin of defeat. On December 14, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the Campaign’s election lawsuit there. As a result, on December 21, Wisconsin’s Governor signed a certificate of final determination confirming the prior certificate of ascertainment that established Biden’s electors as the valid electors for the state.”

Trump responded by rebuking the Wisconsin Supreme Court judge who had signed the majority opinion that rejected the lawsuit, forcing the state marshals responsible for the judge’s security to enhance protection due to a rise in “threatening communications.”

Fake electors 

Smith alleged that as Trump and co-conspirators faltered at overturning states’ official election results, they turned their attention to fake slates of electors.

As early as December 2020, Trump and his allies “developed a new plan regarding targeted states that the defendant had lost (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin): to organize the people who would have served as the defendant’s electors had he won the popular vote, and cause them to sign and send to Pence, as President of the Senate, certificates in which they falsely represent themselves as legitimate electors who had cast electoral votes for the defendant,” Smith wrote.

Trump and his allies lied to Vice President Mike Pence heading toward Jan. 6, “telling him that there was substantial election fraud and concealing their orchestration of the plan to manufacture fraudulent elector slates, as well as their intention to use the fake slates to attempt to obstruct the congressional certification.”

Trump’s alleged lies to Pence and the public “created a tinderbox that he purposely ignited on January 6.”

The filing details numerous people, including Trump, pressuring Pence for weeks to use his role overseeing Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote to overturn the election results.

On the morning of Jan. 6, Pence, once again, told Trump he would not go along with the plan.

“So on January 6, the defendant sent to the Capitol a crowd of angry supporters, whom the defendant had called to the city and inundated with false claims of outcome-determinative election fraud, to induce Pence not to certify the legitimate electoral vote and to obstruct the certification.”

“Although the attack on the Capitol successfully delayed the certification for approximately six hours, the House and Senate resumed the Joint Session at 11:35 p.m. But the conspirators were not done.”

The filing alleges a co-conspirator once again urged Pence to “violate the law” by delaying the certification for 10 days. He refused.

Pressure on Pence

Smith must prove that Trump’s pressure on Pence was outside of their official duties together, and therefore can not be considered immune from prosecution.

Smith plans to introduce evidence of private phone calls and conversations between Trump and his VP, including some with campaign staff, essentially tying their interactions to their interests as those seeking office again, “as running mates in the post-election period.” Smith also plans to highlight that Pence’s role in certifying the election was largely ceremonial and within the realm of the Senate, and strictly outside the bounds of the Oval Office.  Among Smith’s points made in his motion:

• “Because the Vice President’s role is and has always been ministerial, rather than substantive or discretionary, it is difficult to imagine an occasion in which a President would have any valid reason to try to influence it. As such, criminalizing a President’s efforts to affect the Vice President’s role as the President of the Senate overseeing the certification of Electoral College results would not jeopardize an Executive Branch function or authority.”

The Rocky Broad River flows into Lake Lure and overflows the town with debris from Chimney Rock, North Carolina, after heavy rains from Hurricane Helene on Sept. 28, 2024, in Lake Lure, North Carolina. Approximately 6 feet of debris piled on the bridge from Lake Lure to Chimney Rock, blocking access (Melissa Sue Gerrits/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Congress may break from its six-week recess and return to D.C. in the last days before an extremely close election to approve emergency spending for Hurricane Helene recovery and response.

Lawmakers aren’t set to return to Washington, D.C., until after Election Day on Nov. 5, but President Joe Biden indicated Monday during remarks on the storm that he may ask Congress to return sooner to take up an emergency spending request.

Whether to do so would be up to Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat.

How much pressure those two feel to cut the recess short will likely depend on when the White House budget office sends Congress the emergency supplemental spending request, how soon federal agencies expect to run out of cash and how urgent the need appears.

The death toll by Monday afternoon topped 100 over six states — Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee — and White House advisers said that hundreds more are missing. Two million people are without power and many others are lacking water and mobile phone service.

Scott calls for return

Florida Republican Sen. Rick Scott released a statement calling on Schumer to bring that chamber back into session after the White House sends the emergency funding request.

“While I know from my experience with previous hurricanes that FEMA and SBA damage assessments take time, I am today urging Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to immediately reconvene the U.S. Senate when those assessments are completed so that we can pass the clean supplemental disaster funding bill and other disaster relief legislation, like my Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act, needed to ensure the full recovery of families in all impacted communities,” Scott wrote.

That process of putting together a White House supplemental spending request includes determining which federal departments and agencies have enough money to handle their portion of the disaster response and which need additional funds. That can take weeks, especially after large-scale disasters like Helene.

It appeared more likely as of Monday that Congress would return to work on Capitol Hill on Nov. 12 as scheduled and consider the emergency spending then.

In the interim, staff on the House and Senate Appropriations committees as well as in leadership offices will likely begin negotiating the supplemental spending package, once the Office of Management and Budget actually sends the request.

Lawmakers can then pass the bill sometime during the lame-duck session in November or December, possibly attached to one or a package of the overdue full-year government funding bills.

Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack said on C-SPAN on Monday that she felt “exceptionally confident” Congress would approve emergency funding for disaster relief after members return to Washington, D.C.

“I’m absolutely certain there will be a supplemental,” Cammack said. “My fear is that it turns into a political football. And quite frankly things like this, there’s no room for politics when it comes to disasters and emergencies.”

The Disaster Relief Fund

FEMA can spend as much as it needs to on disaster recovery thanks to a provision Congress approved a few days ago and special caveats for emergencies.

The stopgap spending bill Congress approved last week, which keeps the federal government running through Dec. 20, included a provision allowing FEMA to spend money from its Disaster Relief Fund at a faster rate than would have otherwise been allowed.

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund can operate on something called immediate needs funding, which the agency can use as a safety net when that account runs low on money.

Immediate needs funding allows FEMA to pause “funding for long-term recovery projects and hazard mitigation projects that FEMA does not have in its system,” according to a Congressional Research Service report.

“These INF restrictions do not affect individual assistance, or public assistance programs that reimburse emergency response work and protective measures carried out by state and local authorities,” according to CRS.

FEMA has used immediate needs several times, including in August 2017 after Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas as well as during fiscal years 2003 through 2006 and in fiscal 2010, according to CRS.

Earlier pleas for funding unheeded

The Biden administration sent Congress a supplemental spending request in October 2023 asking for additional funding for natural disaster response and recovery. A deeply divided Congress, with Republicans in control of the House and Democrats with a narrow majority in the Senate, did not approve the request.

Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young sent Congress another letter this June, urging lawmakers to approve billions in additional funding for natural disasters.

Young wrote that she wanted to “reiterate the October request and submit revised estimates of an additional $4 billion for certain disaster needs, including funding to help respond to the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, the devastating fires on Maui last summer, and tornado survivors in Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and throughout the Midwest.”

“Particularly as we enter what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is describing as an ‘extraordinary’ hurricane season, the Administration urges prompt congressional action on this request, including for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), to ensure that we can uphold the Federal Government’s responsibility to both rebuild from past disasters and respond to future events,” Young wrote at the time.

The supplemental spending request the Biden administration sends to Congress in the coming weeks will likely build off those prior requests.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday during a briefing that the Biden administration is “disappointed” Congress hasn’t yet approved the supplemental spending request.

“We are disappointed that that didn’t go through,” she said. “We’re going to continue to have this conversation. As the president said, we’re in constant communications with members in Congress, and we want to make sure that they move quickly on this.”

The White House has approved disaster declarations in North Carolina, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and Alabama, freeing up federal emergency management money and resources for those states (Sean Rayford/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden pledged Monday that the federal government would help people throughout the Southeast recover from the devastation of Hurricane Helene and its aftermath, and said he expects to ask Congress for emergency funding in the weeks ahead.

“I’m here to tell every single survivor in these impacted areas that we will be there with you as long as it takes,” Biden said in brief remarks from the  Roosevelt Room in the White House.

Biden said he plans to travel to North Carolina later this week, once his motorcade and other presidential travel requirements wouldn’t get in the way of recovery efforts. 

“I’m committed to traveling to impacted areas as soon as possible, but I’ve been told that it would be disruptive if I did it right now,” Biden said. “We will not do that at the risk of diverting or delaying any of the response assets needed to deal with this crisis.”

Biden said he didn’t know how much money his administration would request Congress provide for recovery efforts, but didn’t rule out asking lawmakers to return to Washington, D.C., before their six-week election recess ends on Nov. 12. Emergency declarations have been issued by Biden for the affected states, enabling disaster assistance.

Helene, which is on track to become one of the deadliest hurricanes in the country’s history, made landfall in Florida last week before leaving a trail of devastation and destruction in its wake. The Associated Press reported Monday the death toll has risen to at least 107, including 30 reported deaths in the North Carolina county that includes Asheville.

Residents throughout the Southeast, including those in Georgia, South Carolina, western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee were hit by some of the worst flooding and wind damage.

Many communities are completely destroyed and lack access to clean drinking water, functioning grocery stores, electricity and cell phone service.

Roads and bridges that should have allowed residents to drive to pick up supplies, or stay with friends or family, have been completely washed out by the hurricane, leaving many people stranded without necessities.

The high water also destroyed many people’s homes and vehicles, making disaster recovery even more complicated throughout the region, but especially in rural areas where people often live far away from town.

Senators appeal for help

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis posted on social media Sunday afternoon that the state is in desperate need of assistance.

“Entire communities in Western North Carolina have no power, no cell service, and remain in severe danger from flooding,” Tillis wrote. “First responders (are) doing the best they can with what they have, but the devastation is incomprehensible. WNC needs all the help it can get and it needs it now.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Ted Budd released a written statement Saturday after a call with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, North Carolina Emergency Management, the National Weather Service and the American Red Cross.

“It is clear that the damage in Western North Carolina is catastrophic,” Budd wrote. “There is no doubt that the road to recovery will be long and difficult, but we will marshal all available resources to assist the region, including public, private, and charitable. We are all in this together.”

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff released a statement Sunday that he’d surveyed storm damage and spoken with FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell.

The statement said Ossoff “discussed the importance of communicating to Georgians the full range of recovery resources and programs that will be available upon the State’s completion of damage assessments.”

Florida Republican Rep. Kat Cammack said on C-SPAN on Monday that the hurricane not only destroyed people’s homes and businesses but devastated farms throughout the region.

“The agricultural damage there is tremendous,” Cammack said. “They saw winds of nearly 100 miles an hour. And so we’re looking at catastrophic losses inland as well as on the coast. It’s really devastating.”

An employee adds a stack of mail-in ballots to a machine that automatically places the ballots Wednesday in envelopes at Runbeck Election Services in Phoenix, Arizona. The company prints mail-in ballots for 30 states and Washington D.C. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — United States Postal Service Postmaster General Louis DeJoy testified before Congress on Thursday that voters can “absolutely” trust their mail-in ballots will be secure and prioritized, though he emphasized they must be mailed at least a week ahead of the various state deadlines to be delivered on time.

DeJoy’s testimony to House lawmakers became heated at times, as members questioned whether delays in general mail delivery and previous issues with mail-in ballots in swing states could disenfranchise voters this year.

DeJoy also brought USPS’s facilities into question, calling them “ratty” twice during the hour-long hearing.

His various comments about the management of the USPS and how the agency plans to handle election mail appeared to frustrate some members of the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee.

For example, in response to a question from Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan about the pace of mail delivery in his home state, DeJoy responded that “the first rockets that went to the moon blew up, OK.”

Pocan then said: “Thanks for blowing up Wisconsin,” before DeJoy gave a lengthier answer.

“We’re going to do a series of transactional adjustments and service measurement adjustments and service metric adjustments as we move forward with this that are going to get your service to be 95% reliable,” DeJoy said.

Millions of ballots in the mail

The hearing came as state officials throughout the country are preparing to, or have already, sent out millions of mail-in ballots that could very well decide the results of elections for Congress and potentially even the presidency.

Mail-in voting surged during the COVID-19 pandemic as a central part of the 2020 presidential election and has remained a popular way for voters to decide who will represent their interests in government.

Voters can also cast ballots in person during early voting and on Election Day.

Lawmakers focused many of their questions during the hearing on how USPS keeps mail-in ballots secure and whether the agency can deliver them on time, though several members voiced frustration with DeJoy’s plans to change operations at USPS.

When asked specifically whether Americans could trust in USPS to handle their election mail, DeJoy said, “Absolutely.”

“I don’t know why you wouldn’t,” he testified. “We’ve delivered in the heightened part of a pandemic, in the most sensationalized political time of elections, and … we delivered it 99 point whatever percent, I mentioned earlier.”

DeJoy had previously said USPS delivered 99.89% of mail-in ballots within seven days during the 2020 election.

DeJoy wrote in testimony submitted to the committee ahead of the hearing that not all state laws consider the speed of the USPS when deciding when voters can request mail-in ballots and when those are sent out.

“For example, some jurisdictions allow voters to request a mail-in ballot very close to Election Day,” he wrote. “Depending on when that ballot is mailed to the voter, it may be physically impossible for that voter to receive the ballot mail, complete their ballot, and return their ballot by mail in time to meet the jurisdiction’s deadline, even with our extraordinary measures, and despite our best efforts.”

‘I see horror’

DeJoy brought up the state of USPS facilities on his own at several points during the hearing, implying that they aren’t clean or up to his standards as a work environment.

“I walk in our plants and facilities, I see horror. My employees see just another day at work,” DeJoy said.

Following a question about whether USPS employees had the appropriate training to handle and deliver mail-in ballots on time, DeJoy said leadership was “overwhelmingly enhancing our training,” before disparaging the facilities.

“We’re on a daily mission to train over 600,000 people across 31,000 ratty locations, I might say, on how to improve our operating practices across the board and at this time most specifically in the election mail area,” he testified. “We’re doing very well at this, just not perfect.”

No members of the panel asked DeJoy to clarify what he meant by “ratty” or followed up when he said separately that he was “sitting on about $20 billion in cash.”

A USPS spokesperson said they had nothing to add to DeJoy’s characterization when asked about the “ratty” comment by States Newsroom.

“If you are listening to the hearing, you just heard him describe the condition of postal facilities further,” Martha S. Johnson wrote in an email sent shortly after DeJoy made his “horror” comment. “I have nothing to add to that.”

Deliveries for rural Americans

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright questioned DeJoy during the hearing about how plans to “consolidate resources around regions with higher population densities” under the so-called Delivering for America plan will affect delivery times overall for rural residents.

DeJoy disagreed with the premise of the question, saying he believed it was “an unfair accusation, considering the condition that the Postal Service has been allowed to get to.”

DeJoy said the USPS had committed to a six-day-a-week delivery schedule and pledged that it would not take longer than five days for mail to arrive.

“It will not go beyond five days, because I’ll put it up in the air and fly it if I have to,” DeJoy said.

Cartwright mentioned that 1.4 million Pennsylvania residents requested to vote by mail during the 2022 midterm elections, a number he expected to rise this year.

The commonwealth has numerous competitive U.S. House districts, a competitive U.S. Senate race and is considered a crucial swing state for the presidential election. Several of those races could be determined by mail-in ballots arriving on time.

Ohio Republican Rep. David Joyce, chairman of the subcommittee, asked DeJoy about issues with the Cleveland regional sort facility during the 2023 election. The secretary of state, Joyce said, found that some mail-in ballots sent as early as Oct. 24 didn’t arrive until Nov. 21.

“These voters are disenfranchised because of the USPS failures,” Joyce said. “How specifically have you enhanced the all clear procedures you referenced in response to the National Association of Secretaries of State? And can you assure us that these procedures will ensure that that doesn’t happen in this upcoming election?”

DeJoy responded that he would “need the specifics of Cleveland,” but said that USPS procedures are “extremely enhanced.”

Georgia primary problems

Georgia Republican Rep. Andrew Clyde, who isn’t on the panel, submitted a question for DeJoy about how a new regional processing and distribution center in Atlanta had “a negative impact” on mail delivery just weeks ahead of the GOP presidential primary earlier this year.

DeJoy said the USPS was investing more than $500 million into the region, but conceded “what went on in Georgia was an embarrassment to the organization, okay, and it should not have happened.”

“We are correcting for it aggressively,” DeJoy said. “Specifically with regard to the primary election, we got through that because I put a whole bunch of people down there and a whole bunch of double-checking processes in place.”

DeJoy added that “the performance was good on election mail for Georgia” and that USPS would deliver Georgia’s mail-in ballots in the weeks ahead “just fine.”

U.S. Capitol. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve a stopgap spending bill that will keep the federal government running through Dec. 20, though the divided Congress has a lot of negotiating to do if members want to pass the dozen full-year appropriations bills before their new deadline.

The short-term funding bill, sometimes referred to as a continuing resolution, will avoid a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1.

The CR is supposed to give lawmakers more time to hash out agreement on the appropriations bills. But Congress regularly uses it as a safety net to push off or entirely avoid making decisions about which departments should get more funding and whether to change policy about how federal tax dollars are spent.

House debate on the CR was broadly bipartisan with Democrats and Republicans voicing support ahead of the 341-82 vote. Every member of the Missouri delegation supported the resolution except U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison, a Springfield Republican.

The Senate is scheduled to vote later Wednesday evening to send the bill to President Joe Biden, who is expected to sign it.

‘Plenty of problems’ ahead

The stopgap bill was expected to be the last major legislation considered by Congress before Election Day. A lame-duck session is scheduled to begin Nov. 12.

“In a matter of days, funding for fiscal year 2024 will run out and it’s Congress’ responsibility to ensure that the government remains open and serving the American people,” House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., said during floor debate. “We are here to avert harmful disruptions to our national security and vital programs our constituents rely on.”

Cole said he hopes Congress can approve the dozen full-year bills later this year.

“The next president and the next Congress should not be forced to do the work of this administration and this Congress,” Cole said. “They’re going to have plenty of problems … let’s not throw a potential government shutdown in front of them as well.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the spending panel, said lawmakers must begin conference talks in the days ahead to reach a bipartisan agreement on the full-year spending bills.

“No matter who wins in November, we owe it to the next Congress and the next president to not saddle them with yesterday’s problems,” DeLauro said.

Noncitizen voting bill dropped

Texas GOP Rep. Chip Roy spoke against the stopgap spending bill and expressed frustration that lawmakers were, once again, relying on a continuing resolution instead of having met the Oct. 1 deadline to pass the full-year spending bills.

“We should not be kicking the can down the road to Dec. 20, a mere five days before Christmas, which is what this town always does,” he said.

Roy also criticized House GOP leaders for not sticking with a six-month stopgap spending bill that carried with it a bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

House leaders brought that bill to the floor last week, but didn’t garner the votes needed to send it to the Senate. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is already illegal.

Secret Service spending

The 49-page continuing resolution extends the funding levels and policies that Congress approved earlier this year as part of its last appropriations process.

Lawmakers included a provision that will let the Secret Service spend money at a faster rate than what would have otherwise been allowed “for protective operations, including for activities relating to National Special Security Events and the 2024 Presidential Campaign,” according to a summary of the bill.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency got a similar provision so it can spend more money that would have otherwise been permitted from its disaster relief fund. The Forest Service’s Wildland Fire Management account was also granted a faster spend rate.

The stopgap spending bill extended authorization for the National Flood Insurance Program as well as several other federal programs that were on track to expire at the end of September.

November election

Whether Congress reaches agreement with the Biden administration on the dozen full-year government funding bills later this year will likely depend on the outcome of the November elections.

Voters choosing divided government for another two years will likely incentivize leaders to work out bipartisan, bicameral agreements during the five weeks Congress is in session during November and December.

Republicans or Democrats securing unified control of the House, Senate and White House could result in another stopgap spending bill pushing off decisions until after the next Congress and next president take their oaths of office in January.

A new president, a new budget ask

Regardless of when Congress completes work on the dozen full-year funding bills, the next president will likely submit their first budget request to lawmakers sometime next spring, starting the annual process all over again.

The president is supposed to release the budget request in early February, but that’s often delayed during the first year of a new administration.

The House and Senate Appropriations committees will then begin holding hearings with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads to ask about their individual requests and begin assessing whether lawmakers will boost their spending.

The Appropriations Committees in each chamber will likely release their separate slates of full-year appropriations bills next summer, possibly followed by floor debate.

This year the House Appropriations Committee reported all dozen of its bills to the floor, following party-line votes when Democrats objected to both spending levels and policy language.

House Republicans approved five of those bills on the floor.

Senate appropriators took broadly bipartisan votes to approve 11 of their bills in committee, save the Homeland Security measure. None of the bills has gone to the floor for amendment debate and a final vote.

That’s not entirely uncommon in the Senate, where floor time is often dedicated to approving judicial nominees and it can take weeks to approve one spending bill.

The House, by contrast, can approve bills in a matter of hours or days if leadership has secured the votes.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol about border policy negotiations on Thursday, Dec. 7, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats attempted to pass a resolution Tuesday addressing abortion access in emergency medical situations, but Republicans blocked it from moving forward.

The floor action followed months of unsuccessful attempts by congressional Democrats to approve legislation on various reproductive rights, including access to birth control and in vitro fertilization.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Tuesday she introduced the resolution to clarify what Congress’ objective was several decades ago when lawmakers approved the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.

“We want to make it clear that Congress’s intent is that women can get life-saving care when they go to an emergency room anywhere in this country,” Murray said.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford blocked Murray’s unanimous consent request to approve the resolution, saying that doctors in emergency departments are able to act in cases of miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and life-threatening situations.

“This is a false claim that somehow what happened in the Dobbs decision and what’s happening in states is limiting that,” Lankford said. “It’s actually the political rhetoric that’s making people afraid.”

Lankford objected to another of Murray’s unanimous consent requests in March, blocking approval of legislation that would have expanded access to in vitro fertilization for military members and veterans.

No recorded vote

Unanimous consent is the fastest way to approve legislative items in the Senate. Under the process, any one senator can ask to approve a bill or resolution and any one senator can object. There is no recorded vote that puts all senators on the record.

Murray’s two-page resolution, which had the backing of 40 cosponsors, would have expressed “the sense of the Senate that every person has the basic right to emergency health care, including abortion care.”

The resolution also expressed that “State laws that purport to ban and restrict abortion in emergency circumstances force medical providers to decide between withholding necessary, stabilizing medical care from a patient experiencing a medical emergency or facing criminal prosecution, and put the lives, health, and futures of patients at risk.”

This resolution wouldn’t have actually changed the text of EMTALA.

The 1986 law states that hospital emergency departments must treat or transfer patients who have emergency medical conditions, regardless of their health insurance status or ability to pay.

It defines an emergency medical condition as something that could result in the health of the patient being in “serious jeopardy,” such as the patient “experiencing serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part.”

Dobbs decision

The federal law has been the center of political and legal debate since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the constitutional right to abortion two years ago in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling.

The Biden administration issued a public letter shortly afterward saying EMTALA protected doctors and other qualified health care providers who ended a pregnancy to stabilize the patient if their life or health was at risk.

Republican attorneys general in several states challenged that view of the law and the U.S. Department of Justice later sued Idaho over its abortion law.

That case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year, but the justices ultimately decided to send it back to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The high court said it should have waited to hear the case until after the lower court ruled.

At the center of the disagreement between Republican state attorneys general and the Biden administration is that the federal law applies when a pregnant patient’s life or health is at risk; many of the conservative state laws only allow abortions after a certain gestational age when a woman’s life is at risk.

Exactly when a woman’s life becomes at risk due to pregnancy complications has led to dozens of stories from women throughout the country, who say they had to wait for treatment until their health deteriorated further.

Analysis from the Associated Press released in August found that more than 100 women experiencing medical distress during pregnancy were turned away from hospitals or negligently treated during the last two years.

ProPublica recently obtained reports “that confirm that at least two women have already died after they couldn’t access legal abortions and timely medical care in their state.”

‘This cruelty is unforgivable and unacceptable’

The Senate resolution that Republicans rejected Tuesday is nearly identical to one House Democrats introduced earlier this month.

Murray said ahead of her UC request that women and their families will not forget about being denied medical care due to Republican state restrictions on abortion access.

“No woman is ever going to forget when she was sent off to miscarry alone after her doctor said, ‘Look, I know your life is in danger, but I’m not sure I’m allowed to save you right now,’” Murray said. “No husband is going to forget calling 911 in a panic after finding his wife bloody and unconscious. No child is going to forget, for a single day of their life, the mother that was taken from them by Republican abortion bans.

“This cruelty is unforgivable and unacceptable. Democrats will not let it become settled status quo.”

The U.S. Capitol on Monday. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Congress is on track to approve legislation this week that will give lawmakers until mid-December to broker agreement on the annual government funding bills that were supposed to become law before the end of this month.

The stopgap spending bill, also known as a continuing resolution, has the broad bipartisan support it needs to move through House and Senate votes this week, though senators will need to reach agreement to vote on the legislation before the Oct. 1 deadline when federal spending runs out.

The 49-page bill, released Sunday after weeks of stalemate as House Republicans went at it alone, is no guarantee that Congress will actually wrap up its work on the full-year bills during the next 12 weeks left before this session of Congress is over, since lawmakers can pass as many stopgap spending bills as they want.

Continuing resolutions essentially extend current spending levels and policy for a set amount of time. They are intended to give the House and Senate additional time to conference final versions of the dozen full-year spending bills.

Nov. 5 election and the lame duck

The election results will likely determine whether the Republican House and Democratic Senate move to reach agreement on the full-year bills during the lame-duck session that will begin after Election Day, or kick the can down the road into next year, when the balance of power could be substantially different.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, appears inclined toward wrapping up work on the full-year appropriations bills in December, saying during a press conference Tuesday that lawmakers would deal with funding decisions during the lame-duck session.

Johnson signaled that he’s going to try to move all the final, conferenced spending bills across the floor one by one, as opposed to bundling all 12 together in an omnibus or packaging several of the bills together in what’s called a mini-bus. Such large bills regularly draw opposition from conservative Republicans.

“We have broken the Christmas omni and I have no intention of going back to that terrible tradition,” Johnson said. “We don’t want any buses, we’re not going to do any buses.”

The stopgap spending bill Congress is expected to approve this week would set the next deadline for government funding on Dec. 20, four days before Christmas.

Senate and House both struggle

Johnson also laid the blame for Congress not completing work on the full-year government funding bills at the feet of Senate Democrats, arguing that the House did all of its work.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved 11 of the dozen appropriations bills with broadly bipartisan votes, but was unable to garner consensus on the Homeland Security spending bill.

None of those bills have come up on the Senate floor for votes, in part, because it can take weeks in that chamber to move spending bills through the amendment process.

The House Appropriations Committee reported its dozen bills out along party-line votes, without the Democratic support that would be needed for the bills to actually become law during divided government.

House Republican leaders passed five of the bills across the floor, including Defense, Homeland Security, Interior-Environment, Military Construction-VA and State-Foreign Operations.

House GOP leaders attempted to pass the Legislative Branch bill, which provides funding for Congress and its associated agencies, but were unsuccessful. House rules allow that chamber to debate and hold votes on bills in a matter of hours, a much faster pace than the days or weeks it often takes the Senate.

Neither Senate leaders nor House leadership have made any effort to conference the full-year spending bills, a process that is needed to reach the bipartisan, bicameral versions that must pass if Congress wants to avoid another stopgap spending bill in December.

The process typically takes at least six weeks, and with both chambers set to leave town at the end of this week for a six-week break, there likely won’t be enough time to conference all the bills before the mid-December deadline that will be set by the continuing resolution.

‘Stay away from poison pills’

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, criticized Johnson for trying to pass a six-month stopgap spending bill through the House earlier this month, saying it was a waste of time.

That legislation, which didn’t garner the support to pass, included with it a GOP bill that would have required proof of citizenship to register to vote.

“If both sides keep working together, if we stay away from poison pills and partisan spectacle, then the American people can rest assured there won’t be a government shutdown,” Schumer said. “But we still have more work to do.”

The Biden administration signaled its support for the stopgap spending bill Tuesday, releasing a Statement of Administration Policy calling “for swift passage of this bill in both chambers of the Congress to avoid a costly, unnecessary Government shutdown and to ensure there is adequate time to pass full-year FY 2025 appropriations bills later this year.”

The Democratic presidential nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, speaks during an event Friday at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Centre in Atlanta. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Vice President Kamala Harris is chiding GOP nominee Donald Trump for not agreeing to another presidential debate before voting ends Nov. 5, though he doesn’t appear inclined to change his mind.

“Let’s have another debate,” Harris, the Democratic candidate, said Sunday. “There’s more to talk about and the voters of America deserve to hear the conversations that I think we should be having on substance, on issues, on policies.”

Harris and Trump debated for the first time on Sept. 10, but so far the two campaigns haven’t reached agreement with another news organization to set up a second debate. Two days after their only debate so far, Trump declared he wouldn’t agree to another.

Harris-Walz Campaign Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon released a written statement this weekend announcing that Harris agreed to a CNN debate on Oct. 23 and pressing Trump to do so as well.

“Donald Trump should have no problem agreeing to this debate,” Dillon wrote. “It is the same format and setup as the CNN debate he attended and said he won in June, when he praised CNN’s moderators, rules, and ratings.”

Trump brushed that aside during a rally on Saturday in North Carolina, saying that “it’s just too late” since early and mail-in voting has already begun in some states.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Trump and then-Democratic nominee Joe Biden held their final debate on Oct. 22.

Four years before that, when Trump and Hillary Clinton were vying for the Oval Office, they debated on Sept. 26, Oct. 9 and Oct. 19.

In an attempt to nudge Trump toward debating, the Democratic National Committee has paid for mobile billboards calling him a “chicken” and showing him dressed up in a yellow chicken costume. Those billboards, as well as a second one trying to link him to Project 2025, will be in Pennsylvania on Monday evening ahead of a campaign stop.

DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman wrote in a statement about the chicken billboards that Trump had previously said he’d debate anytime, anyplace.

“The American people deserve another opportunity to hear Vice President Harris and Donald Trump lay out their starkly different visions for our country side-by-side before Election Day,” Rahman wrote. “Instead, Trump is busy hiding from the American people because he knows they’ll reject his Project 2025 agenda to hike taxes on the middle class, ban abortion nationwide, and use the federal government to assert virtually unchecked power over our daily lives.”

Harris and Trump, however, are both in talks with the CBS show “60 minutes” for detailed interviews that would air back-to-back on Oct. 7.

The vice presidential candidates are scheduled to debate on Oct. 1 in New York City, hosted by CBS. That will be the last debate of this cycle unless Trump changes his mind.

Trump, Harris, running mates in swing states

Campaign travel will continue to be a central focus for both Republicans and Democrats this week, with just over six weeks until voting wraps up.

Harris is expected to rally supporters in Pennsylvania on Wednesday, Arizona on Friday and Nevada on Sunday.

Trump will be in Savannah, Georgia on Tuesday to talk about his tax plans before heading to Mint Hill, North Carolina on Wednesday. He then has two stops scheduled in Michigan on Friday; the first in Walker and the second in Warren.

Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Walz is expected to hold a campaign reception Tuesday in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, won’t be on Capitol Hill for the final in-session week before the election, but will be out on the campaign trail.

Vance is scheduled to be in Traverse City, Michigan on Wednesday before holding two stops in Georgia on Thursday and heading to Newton, Pennsylvania on Saturday.

Recent projections tilt in favor of Republicans taking the U.S. Senate, an already closely divided chamber that is sure to be near evenly split again next Congress (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The country’s next president will need a friendly Congress to make their policy dreams a reality, but control of the two chambers remains deeply uncertain with just weeks until Election Day — and whether the outcome will be a party trifecta in the nation’s capital.

Recent projections tilt in favor of Republicans taking the U.S. Senate, an already closely divided chamber that is sure to be near evenly split again next Congress.

And though Vice President Kamala Harris injected a jolt of energy into the Democratic Party, prognosticators still say the prizewinner of the House is anybody’s guess.

“The House is highly close and competitive, and really could go either way.  And I say the same thing about the presidential race,” Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told States Newsroom on Thursday.

A ‘district-by-district slug fest’ 

Control of the 435-seat House remains a toss-up, with competitive races in both the seven swing states and in states that will almost certainly have no bearing on who wins the top of the ticket.

Sabato’s, an election prognosticator, currently ranks nine Republican seats of the roughly 30 competitive races as “toss-up” seats for the party — meaning the GOP incumbents are locked in competitive races.

The GOP has held a slim majority this Congress, and Democrats only need to net four seats to gain control.

“It really is right on the razor’s edge,” Kondik said. “It’s pretty crazy that, you know, we’ve had two straight elections with just 222-seat majorities. And it’s pretty rare historically for there to be, you know, majorities that small twice in a row — unprecedented.

“Usually you’d have one side or the other breaking out to a bigger advantage, and I think both sides are viewing this, really, as a district-by-district slug fest.”

Sabato’s adjusted its ratings on five races Thursday, including moving Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska to the “toss-up” category from a safer “leans Democratic.” Kondik also nudged the race for Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York to “leans Republican” from “toss up.”

“The big ones are probably Peltola, and then Mike Lawler, who holds one of the bluest seats held by a Republican, but I moved him to ‘leans R.’ It seems pretty clear to me that he’s in a decent position,” Kondik said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the party’s fundraising arm for House races, announced in June nearly $1.2 million in ad buys in Alaska. The organization launched a new ad in the state this month that accuses Peltola of not supporting veterans.

It’s always about Pennsylvania

In addition to Peltola, Kondik ranks nine other Democratic incumbents — of the nearly 40 competitive races — as toss-ups.

Among the toss-ups is the seat currently held by Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, a key swing state in the presidential race. Cartwright’s Republican challenger, Rob Bresnahan, runs an electrical contracting company in the northeastern Pennsylvania district that he took over from his grandfather.

Democrats are investing in the seat: Cartwright is running a new ad featuring union workers praising him, and just last week Harris hosted a rally in the district, which includes Scranton.

But the NRCC thinks they have a pretty good chance of flipping his seat.

Breshnahan’s company is “a union shop,” said NRCC head Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina. “So he can talk union talk. He’s a great candidate for us.”

“Matt Cartwright is in trouble,” Hudson said on the conservative “Ruthless Podcast” on Sept. 12.

“I think the way we’ve structured it, the type of candidates we recruited across the country, from Maine to Alaska, from Minnesota to Texas, regardless of top of the ticket, we’re going to pick up seats,” Hudson said.

Van Orden targeted in Wisconsin

But Sabato’s also nudged three seats toward the Democrats’ favor on Thursday.

Kondik moved Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin from the safety of “likely Republican” to the weaker “leans Republican” category.

Rep. Suzan DelBene, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, sees an “important opportunity” in Van Orden’s district. The GOP congressman, who represents central and western Wisconsin, became known for his profanity-laced outburst at young Senate pages for taking photos of the Capitol rotunda.

The Democrats are running challenger Rebecca Cooke, a small business owner, in the hopes of unseating him.

“We have an incredible candidate in Rebecca Cooke (against) one of the most extreme, which is saying a lot, Republicans in the House,” DelBene told reporters on a call Monday.

“We have put Rebecca Cooke on our Red-to-Blue list and are strongly supporting her campaign. She’s doing a great job, and this absolutely is a priority for us,” DelBene said, referring to the DCCC’s list of 30 candidates that receive extra fundraising support.

DelBene said she’s confident in the Democrats’ chances to flip the House, citing healthy coffers and revived interest.

“We have seen huge enthusiasm all across the country. We have seen people, more and more people turning out to volunteer, to knock on doors, to make phone calls,” she said.

Democrats’ cash ‘flooding,’ NRCC chief says

Erin Covey, a House analyst with The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, wrote on Sept. 5 that Democrats have a brighter outlook after Harris assumed the top of the ticket, though November remains a close call.

“Now, polling conducted by both parties largely shows Harris matching, or coming a few points short of, Biden’s 2020 margins across competitive House districts,” Covey wrote.

The NRCC has taken note. During his interview on the “Ruthless Podcast,” Hudson compared Harris becoming the Democrats’ new choice for president as a “bloodless coup,” and said the enthusiasm she’s sparked is a cause for concern for Republicans. Democratic delegates nominated Harris, in accordance with party rules, to run for the Oval Office after Biden dropped out in late July.

“A lot of people, even Democrats, you know, just weren’t comfortable voting for Joe Biden. With Kamala on the ticket, we saw a surge in Democrats coming home and having the enthusiasm,” Hudson said.

Hudson said he also worries about Democrats’ fundraising numbers.

“The one thing that keeps you awake at night is the Democrat money. It’s flooding,” Hudson said. “The second quarter this year I was able to raise the most money we’ve ever raised as a committee, and the Democrats raised $7 million more. I mean, it’s just, they just keep coming. It’s like the Terminator.”

“But we don’t have to match them dollar for dollar,” Hudson said. “We’ve just got to make sure we’ve got the resources we need. And so we’ve just got to keep our pace.”

The DCCC announced Friday it raised $22.3 million in August, bringing its total for this election cycle to $250.6 million.

Senate map tilts toward GOP

Republicans are inching closer and closer to flipping the Senate red during this year’s elections, thanks to a map that favors GOP incumbents and puts Democrats on the defensive in several states.

West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice is widely expected to win his bid for the upper chamber, bringing Republicans up to 50 seats, as long as they hang on in Florida, Nebraska and Texas.

But Democrats will need to secure wins in several challenging states, including Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and break the 50-50 tie through a Democratic presidency — if they want to remain the majority party.

That many Democratic wins seems increasingly unlikely, though not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Montana, where Sen. Jon Tester is looking to secure reelection against GOP challenger Tim Sheehy, has been moved from a “toss-up” state to leaning toward Republicans by three respected analysis organizations in the last few weeks.

The Cook Political Report wrote in its ratings change earlier this month that several “public polls have shown Sheehy opening up a small, but consistent lead.”

“Democrats push back that their polling still shows Tester within the margin of error of the race, and that those are exactly the type of close races he’s won before,” their assessment said. “Tester, however, has never run on a presidential ballot in a polarized environment of this kind before — and even with his stumbles, Sheehy is still the strongest, best financed candidate he’s ever faced.”

Republicans winning Montana’s Senate seat could give them a firm, though narrow, 51-seat Senate majority.

Florida, Texas, Nebraska

That, however, would require the Republican incumbents in states like Florida and Texas — where it’s not clear if evolving trends against Republicans will continue — to secure their reelection wins.

And it would mean holding off a wild card independent candidate in the Cornhusker state.

The Cook Political Report says it’s “worth keeping an eye on a unique situation developing in Nebraska, where independent candidate Dan Osborn is challenging Republican Sen. Deb Fischer.”

CPR also noted in its analysis that Democrats’ best pick-up opportunities, which could rebalance the scales a bit, are Florida and Texas.

“Today, the Lone Star State looks like the better option because of the strengths and fundraising of Democrats’ challenger there, Rep. Colin Allred,” CPR wrote.

If Democrats do hold onto 50 seats, through whatever combination of wins and losses shakes out on election night, majority control would depend on whichever candidate wins the presidential contest.

Given the close nature of several Senate races, it is entirely possible control of that chamber isn’t known until after recounts take place in the swing states.

Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Gary Peters, D-Mich., said during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast this week that he’s known all along Democratic candidates will be in “very right races.”

“In a nutshell, I’m optimistic,” Peters said. “I believe we’re going to hold the majority. I feel good about where we are. We’re basically where I thought we would be after Labor Day in really tight races. None of this is a surprise to us. Now we just have to run our playbook, be focused, be disciplined.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, led this cycle by Montana Sen. Steve Daines, is confident the GOP will pick up the Senate majority following November’s elections.

The group highlighted a Washington Post poll this week showing a tie between Democratic Sen. Bob Casey and GOP candidate Dave McCormick in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

NRSC Spokesman Philip Letsou sent out a written statement after the poll’s release that Casey is in the “race for his life…because Pennsylvania voters know Casey’s lockstep support for Kamala Harris and her inflationary, anti-fracking agenda will devastate their economy. Pennsylvanians have had enough of liberal, career politicians like Casey and Harris.”

No change in filibuster in sight

The GOP acquisition of a handful of seats would still require the next Republican leader to constantly broker deals with Democrats, since the chamber is widely expected to retain the legislative filibuster.

That rule requires at least 60 senators vote to advance legislation toward final passage and is the main reason the chamber rarely takes up partisan bills.

A Republican sweep of the House, Senate and White House for unified government would give them the chance to pass certain types of legislation through the fast-track budget reconciliation process they used to approve the 2017 tax law.

How wide their majorities are in each chamber will determine how much they can do within such a bill, given Republicans will still have centrist members, like Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Maine’s Susan Collins, balancing the party against more far-right policy goals.

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth speaks about access to in vitro fertilization on the steps of the Capitol building on Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2024, along with other Senate Democrats holding photos of families who benefited from IVF. At right, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., holds a photo of Duckworth’s family that includes Duckworth’s children, born with the help of IVF (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The closely divided U.S. Senate gridlocked Tuesday over the best way to provide nationwide protections for in vitro fertilization, despite lawmakers from both political parties maintaining they want to do so.

Republicans voted against advancing a Democratic bill that could have prevented states from enacting “harmful or unwarranted limitations” on the procedure and bolstered access for military members and veterans. Two Republicans voted with Democrats — Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.

That came just a short time after Senate Democrats — who narrowly control the chamber — in a procedural move blocked a GOP bill from Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Katie Britt of Alabama that would have barred Medicaid funding from going to any state that bans IVF.

The 51-44 vote that prevented Democrats’ legislation from moving toward a final vote followed numerous floor speeches and press conferences, including by the Harris-Walz presidential campaign, that sought to elevate the issue ahead of the November elections. The measure needed 60 votes to advance.

“This is a chance for my colleagues across the aisle to put their votes where their mouths have been,” said Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the bill’s sponsor and a mom of two children born as a result of IVF. “They say they support IVF. Here you go — vote on this.”

Duckworth said the legislation would provide critical IVF services to U.S. military members and veterans, many of whom experience infertility or experience difficulty having children due to their service.

“It allows our military men and women, prior to a deployment into a combat zone, to preserve and freeze their genetic material; so that should they come home with injuries that result in them becoming infertile, they will have already preserved their genetic material so that they can, themselves, start those beautiful families they wanted,” Duckworth said.

Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris released a written statement following the vote rebuking GOP senators for blocking the bill.

“Every woman in every state must have reproductive freedom,” Harris wrote. “Yet, Republicans in Congress have once again made clear that they will not protect access to the fertility treatments many couples need to fulfill their dream of having a child.”

Republicans blocked Democrats’ bill earlier this year. But Senate leadership scheduled another vote after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump reignited the issue in August when he said his administration would mandate health insurance companies pay for IVF — a significant break with how the GOP has approached the issue.

“We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” Trump said during an interview with NBC News. “We’re going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.”

Alabama ruling

Democrats began speaking at length about preserving access to IVF earlier this year after the Alabama state Supreme Court issued an opinion in February that frozen embryos constitute children under state law.

That ruling forced all the state’s IVF clinics to halt their work until the state legislature passed a bill providing criminal and civil protections for those clinics.

Democrats have since argued that legislating the belief life begins at conception, which is championed by most conservative Republicans, is at odds with access to IVF, which typically freezes more embryos than would be implanted.

Those frozen embryos can be preserved or discarded, depending on the patient’s wishes, the clinic’s policies and state law. Some conservatives believe that discarding shouldn’t be legal or are opposed to the process altogether.

The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, voted earlier this year to oppose IVF, writing in a resolution that couples should consider adoption and that the process “engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life.”

“We grieve alongside couples who have been diagnosed with infertility or are currently struggling to conceive, affirm their godly desire for children, and encourage them to consider the ethical implications of assisted reproductive technologies as they look to God for hope, grace, and wisdom amid suffering,” it stated.

Senate Democrats’ press for IVF protections has gone hand-in-hand with their efforts to bolster other reproductive rights, like access to birth control and abortion.

The issues could play a significant role in determining the outcome of the presidential election this November as well which political party controls the House and Senate.

Republican vice presidential nominee and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance missed Tuesday’s vote, but voted against advancing Democrats’ IVF bill when it was on the floor in June.

IVF bill from Cruz, Britt

Before the Senate held a vote on Democrats’ bill, Cruz asked for quick approval of an IVF bill he and Britt introduced earlier this year.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray blocked his unanimous consent request.

During debate on that bill, Britt questioned why Democrats haven’t scheduled a recorded vote on her legislation, saying it could get the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage.

“Today, we have an opportunity to act quickly and overwhelmingly to protect continued nationwide IVF access for loving American families,” Britt said. “Our bill is the only bill that protects IVF access while safeguarding religious liberty.”

The Britt-Cruz legislation has three co-sponsors, including Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis, Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall and Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker.

Murray said the Britt-Cruz bill didn’t address what would happen in states that legislate fetal personhood, which she called “the biggest threat to IVF.”

“It is silent on whether states can demand that an embryo be treated the same as a living, breathing person,” Murray said. “Or whether parents should be allowed to have clinics dispose of unused embryos, something that is a common, necessary part of the IVF process.”

Cruz tried to pass his legislation through the unanimous consent process, which allows any one senator to ask for approval. Any one senator can then block that request from moving forward — as Murray did. There is no recorded vote as part of the UC process.

Cruz previously asked for unanimous consent to pass the bill in June, but was blocked then as well.

Legal protections

Democrats’ 64-page bill would have provided legal protections for anyone seeking fertility treatment, including IVF, and for the health care professionals providing that type of care.

It would have barred state and federal governments from “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements” on IVF access.

The legislation would have bolstered fertility treatment coverage for members of the military and veterans, as well as their spouses, partners, or gestational surrogates.

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine supports Democrats’ legislation. Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer Sean Tipton wrote in a statement released this week that Democrats’ IVF bill would “protect the rights of Americans to seek the medical services they may need to have children and ensure no healthcare provider faces legal consequences for trying to help their patients as they seek to build their families.”

“This legislation also increases access to IVF treatments for all Americans by mandating that employer-sponsored insurance plans and other public insurance plans cover fertility treatment,” Tipton wrote. “Significantly, it would ensure the federal government does right by its own employees by providing coverage for active-duty military, veterans, and civilian staff.”

People watch the ABC News presidential debate between Democratic nominee, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, and Republican nominee, former U.S. President Donald Trump, on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024, at a watch party at The Abbey, a historic gay bar in West Hollywood, California. The economy will remain central to both campaigns even as inflation cools and wages increase (Mario Tama/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The presidential campaigns are rushing ahead this week without missing a beat, despite numerous law enforcement agencies investigating a possible assassination attempt Sunday on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, was looking to pick up an endorsement from the International Brotherhood of Teamsters during a private sit-down interview with the organization on Monday before heading to several campaign stops later this week.

Trump, the GOP nominee, whose campaign is fundraising off a gunman putting an AK-47 through the fence at his Florida golf course before being confronted by the Secret Service, is expected to continue his regular schedule.

Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, will be on the campaign trail as well, after making headlines this weekend when he seemingly admitted making up a story about Haitian immigrants in Ohio before doubling down on the false claim.

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” Vance said during a combative interview with Dana Bash on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Vance then insisted that he’s repeating concerns from his constituents, despite public officials and police officers in Ohio saying there’s no evidence of immigrants eating geese or cats.

“I say that we’re creating a story, meaning we’re creating the American media focusing on it,” Vance added.

Vance’s comments and repeated criticism of Harris came shortly after her campaign released a list of 17 Reagan administration officials endorsing her bid for the Oval Office.

“Our votes in this election are less about supporting the Democratic Party and more about our resounding support for democracy,” they wrote. “It’s our hope that this letter will signal to other Republicans and former Republicans that supporting the Democratic ticket this year is the only path forward toward an America that is strong and viable for our children and grandchildren for years to come.”

Ken Adelman, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. and U.S. arms control director; Carol Adelman, USAID assistant administrator; Robert Thompson, senior staff economist at the Council of Economic Advisers; Gahl Burt, White House social secretary; B. Jay Cooper, deputy assistant to the president; Kathleen Shanahan, a staff assistant at the National Security Council; and Pete Souza, official White House photographer were among those from the Reagan administration to publicly voice their support for Harris.

NABJ chat, stops in swing states

Tuesday’s campaign schedule shows a packed day of public events for all the major campaign names.

• Harris is expected to attend a fireside chat with the National Association of Black Journalists in Philadelphia, months after Trump’s on-stage panel interview with three NABJ journalists stirred up controversy within the organization and made headlines for Trump’s responses to their questions.

• Trump will host a town hall in Flint, Michigan moderated by Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, his former press secretary, during the evening. Trump also abruptly announced an XSpaces event for Monday night at 8 p.m. Eastern on the social media platform.

• Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, running mate to Harris, is expected to attend events in Macon and Atlanta, Georgia. He’ll then head to Asheville, North Carolina to give a stump speech.

• Vance is expected to speak at a rally in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

Also on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood will hear arguments on whether Robert F. Kennedy’s Jr.’s name should be removed from Michigan’s ballot.

“Before a court may issue a temporary restraining order, it should be assured that the movant has produced compelling evidence of irreparable and imminent injury and that the movant has exhausted reasonable efforts to give the adverse party notice,” Hood wrote.

Kennedy, who suspended his bid for the Oval Office last month, had requested an immediate ruling, which the judge denied.

A pro-Trump mob breaks into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Capitol Police are welcoming a special security designation from the Department of Homeland Security for Jan. 6, 2025, when Congress will gather to certify the Electoral College vote count for the winner of the presidential election.

The last time Congress undertook the responsibility, a pro-Trump mob attacked the building, eventually breaking through police barricades, severely injuring officers and disrupting the process.

The rioters were spurred on by false claims from former president and current Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump that he won the 2020 election when he had in fact lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Members of Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence were evacuated or told to shelter in place in their offices as one of the most secure buildings in the country was overrun.

Federal prosecutors have since secured convictions or plea deals for hundreds of the people who attacked law enforcement and obstructed Congress’ responsibility to certify the vote that day.

United States Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger released a written statement Thursday saying the “National Special Security Event designation will further strengthen our work to protect the Members of Congress and the legislative process.”

“The United States Capitol Police has been preparing for the January 6 count, as well as the Inauguration, for several months,” Manger added. “We have made hundreds of changes and improvements over the past three years, and we are confident that the Capitol will be safe and secure.”

National Special Security Events, or NSSEs, are somewhat expected for major events, like State of the Union speeches, presidential inaugurations and the presidential nominating conventions that the Democrats and Republicans hold every four years.

This, however, will be the first time that one has been issued for Congress’ certification of the Electoral College vote.

The designation means the U.S. Secret Service will be the lead federal law enforcement agency planning security for the event, despite it being held in the U.S. Capitol, where USCP typically holds the top jurisdiction.

“National Special Security Events are events of the highest national significance,” Eric Ranaghan, special agent in charge of the U.S. Secret Service’s Dignitary Protective Division, said in a written statement released Wednesday. “The U.S. Secret Service, in collaboration with our federal, state, and local partners are committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive and integrated security plan to ensure the safety and security of this event and its participants.”

(Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate will vote for a second time next week on legislation from Democrats that would bolster support for in vitro fertilization, though it’s unlikely GOP lawmakers will reverse course from their previous opposition.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the revote Thursday afternoon, saying he hopes that Republicans will join with Democrats to advance the measure toward final passage. The bill would ensure patients have access to in vitro fertilization.

“Republicans can’t claim to be pro-family on one hand, only to block pro-family policies like federal protections for IVF and the child tax credit,” Schumer said. “But that’s just what they did this summer and I hope we get a different outcome when we vote for a second time.”

The Senate last held a procedural vote on the bill in June, though it didn’t come close to the 60 senators needed to advance.

The 48-47 procedural vote was mostly along party lines with Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski breaking with Republicans to support moving forward with debate and a final passage vote.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy argued against advancing the bill during debate, saying the legislation wasn’t necessary since no state currently barred IVF.

“Today’s vote is disingenuous — pushing a bill haphazardly drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all who may pursue IVF treatments,” Cassidy said at the time.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray spoke in support of approving the legislation, saying in June it shouldn’t be “controversial, especially if Republicans are serious about” supporting access to IVF.

“As we saw in Alabama, the threat to IVF is not hypothetical, it is not overblown and it is not fearmongering,” Murray said.

Alabama state legislators earlier this year had to provide criminal and civil protection to IVF clinics after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos constituted children under state law.

The opinion from Alabama’s justices temporarily led all IVF clinics within the state to close their doors to patients, wreaking havoc on couples hoping to start or grow their families through the complicated, emotionally draining and often expensive process.

The issue also has emerged in the presidential race, and was fought over in the Sept. 10 debate by the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kamala Harris, and the Republican candidate, former President Donald Trump.

A Missouri case marked the 14th person to contract highly pathogenic avian influenza, or H5N1, this year amid ongoing outbreaks among poultry and dairy cattle. The Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at Iowa State University tests samples from animals for viruses such as avian influenza (Photo courtesy of Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory).

WASHINGTON — Public health officials are still trying to determine how a Missouri resident contracted bird flu without having any contact with infected animals, but said Thursday there is no evidence of human-to-human transmission taking place in small enclaves or in a more widespread manner.

The Missouri case marked the 14th person to contract highly pathogenic avian influenza, or H5N1, this year amid ongoing outbreaks among poultry and dairy cattle, though it marks the first time someone without contact to those animals was diagnosed with the virus.

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said on a call with reporters the “evidence points to this being a one-off case, and those do happen with novel influenza.”

“Thus far, we have not seen any evidence of unusual levels of influenza activity in the area where this individual resides,” Shah said during the hour-long briefing. “There have been no increases in the volume of visits to emergency departments for influenza and no increase in laboratory detections of influenza cases in Missouri more broadly.”

The state’s public health laboratory, he said, is subtyping all positive cases of Influenza A, following the CDC recommending ongoing detailed surveillance this spring.

The practice is how doctors and public health officials confirmed this case and would likely be how they diagnose any uptick in cases in the future in the “overwhelming” number states that are taking the extra step of subtyping, he said.

There are several types of influenza virus that are classified by the letters A, B, C and D. The viruses within the influenza A category are further categorized or subtyped based on the proteins hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). There are at least 130 combinations of subtypes within Influenza A, according to the CDC.

“So here’s the bottom line, our influenza surveillance system is designed to find needles in haystacks,” Shah said. “And as this case and others show, it is working. And here, in this case, we found such a needle, but we don’t know how it got there.”

The Missouri patient, who has significant underlying medical conditions, was admitted to a hospital on Aug. 22 after presenting to health care providers with “acute symptoms of chest pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and weakness,” according to the CDC. The patient is not being identified out of privacy concerns.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services announced the diagnosis on Sept. 4, as did the CDC in a separate statement.

Missouri DHSS noted the patient had recovered and been sent home from the hospital, while the CDC pointed out that the state has reported cases of H5N1 in commercial and backyard poultry flocks this year.

The patient hadn’t been in contact with any livestock or poultry and didn’t indicate in a detailed questionnaire that they had consumed any food products, like raw milk, that could have potentially transmitted the virus.

Shah said on the call that public health officials are technically classifying this as a case of H5 and not H5N1 as they work to sequence the virus more fully, though that might not be possible.

The CDC has begun classifying the virus’ genetic sequence, but since the patient’s viral RNA levels were “extremely low” the agency may not be “able to generate a full flu genome, including the neuraminidase or the N part of the virus,” he said.

“We’re throwing everything we’ve got at this, but ultimately a full sequence may not be technically feasible because of the low concentration of viral RNA,” Shah said. “The data that we do have and that have been generated thus far show an H5 virus that is closely related to the (H5N1) virus circulating among dairy cows.”

The CDC, he said, is “continuing to look for evidence of genetic changes that would suggest, for example, an increased potential for spread.” None have yet been found.

Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at CDC, said the risk to the general public from bird flu remains low.

“We assess risk continuously with every case and with every sort of change, and we continue to look at it as low,” Daskalakis said. “If there are changes, we would reassess that risk in real time.”

While the CDC investigation is ongoing, Shah said the further out from the case public health officials get without seeing any new diagnosis, the less likely they become.

“We are beyond the typical 10-day window for transmission,” Shah said. “And so with each passing day, the likelihood of this being something that’s happening deep underwater goes down.”

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks on his cell phone as walks back to his office in the U.S. Capitol building on Nov. 13, 2023 in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson pulled a six-month stopgap spending bill from heading to the floor for a vote Wednesday, scuttling efforts by the GOP to show solidarity behind their plan, which included a provision requiring ID to register to vote in federal elections.

The spending bill, released by House Republicans last week in the heat of a presidential campaign in which immigration is a central focus, had no chance of becoming law amid opposition from Democrats, a cool response from many GOP senators and a veto threat from the Biden administration.

A number of House GOP lawmakers had also come out against the legislation.

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters that lawmakers plan to work through the weekend to find a path forward on the stopgap spending bill and language that would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote.

“No vote today because we are in the consensus-building business here in Congress; with a small majority, that’s what you do,” he said. “We’re having thoughtful conversations, family conversations within the Republican Conference and I believe we’ll get there.”

Johnson said Congress has “two primary obligations right now.”

One is funding the government ahead of the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1, thereby avoiding a shutdown.

And he said the other is addressing concerns about the possibility that people who are not citizens could vote in the November election, even though that is already illegal.

“We’re going to continue to work on this. The whip is going to do the hard work and build consensus. We’re going to work through the weekend on that,” Johnson told reporters. “And I want any member of Congress, in either party, to explain to the American people why we should not ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in U.S. elections.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump posted on social media Tuesday that Republicans should not vote for any short-term spending measure without the sidecar voter ID bill attached.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, called for a bipartisan negotiation after news broke of Johnson pulling the vote.

Syringes of COVID-19 vaccinations are filled during MU Health Care's vaccination clinic in the Walsworth Family Columns Club at Faurot Field in Columbia on Feb. 4, 2021 (Photo by Justin Kelley/MU Health Care).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved an updated COVID-19 vaccine intended to address severe symptoms of the virus ahead of the cold and flu season.

The new booster shots from Moderna and Pfizer follow a summer of increasing COVID-19 cases and are designed to better address the variants that are circulating now.

Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said in a written statement that vaccination “continues to be the cornerstone of COVID-19 prevention.”

“These updated vaccines meet the agency’s rigorous, scientific standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality,” Marks said. “Given waning immunity of the population from previous exposure to the virus and from prior vaccination, we strongly encourage those who are eligible to consider receiving an updated COVID-19 vaccine to provide better protection against currently circulating variants.”

Wastewater surveillance has been steadily increasing since early May and could rise further now that children throughout the country are returning to school.

The number of emergency department visits began increasing in May as well. And while the death rate from COVID-19 steadily decreased during the first half of the year, it began ticking up slightly in June, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The FDA announcement said that three doses of the updated Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine or two doses of the updated Moderna vaccine are approved for unvaccinated children between six months and 4 years old.

Children between six months and 4 years old who have already received their COVID-19 vaccine are eligible to receive one or two doses or either updated vaccine. The dosing will depend on the timing and number of doses of their previous vaccination.

Children between 5 and 11 years old can receive a single dose of the updated vaccine, regardless of whether they’ve been previously vaccinated or not. If a child in that age range has been vaccinated against COVID-19, they need to wait at least two months before getting the updated dose.

Anyone over the age of 12 is eligible for a single dose of the updated vaccine if they’ve been vaccinated previously. They also must wait at least two months after their last vaccination.

Pfizer wrote in a statement that its “vaccine will begin shipping immediately and be available in pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics across the U.S. beginning in the coming days.”

Moderna said it expects its updated vaccine “to be in pharmacies and care settings in the coming days.”

The Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, holds a news conference outside the Trump National Golf Club Bedminster on Aug. 15, 2024 in Bedminster, New Jersey. The food items were props to illustrate his criticisms about the effects of inflation (Adam Gray/Getty Images).

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Thursday he sees no need to switch the tactics or tone of his bid for the White House now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee instead of President Joe Biden.

Speaking during a press conference at his golf club in New Jersey, the former president began with 45 minutes of comments on a myriad of issues before he took more than a dozen questions from reporters.

Trump argued that there was no need to limit his personal criticism of Harris since there are several criminal trials ongoing against him and because she has called him “weird” several times.

“I think I’m entitled to personal attacks,” Trump said. “I don’t have a lot of respect for her. I don’t have a lot of respect for her intelligence. And I think she’ll be a terrible president.”

Numerous Republicans, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who challenged Trump for the nomination though she now says she will vote for him, have called for Trump to focus more on the policy differences between the two political parties, and less on his personal grievances with Harris.

Trump, for example, sought to question Harris’ racial identity during his panel interview at the National Association of Black Journalists late last month.

Trump gave Thursday’s press conference outside and spoke while standing in between two tables of groceries and what appeared to be a large, blue doll house.

He used the props to make a case that prices are too high for American families, laying the blame for inflation at the feet of the Biden-Harris administration and insisting he’s the only person able to get prices back down.

Trump brushed aside his polling numbers in swing states, some of which have him trailing or inside the margin of error, in the match-up with Harris.

“I tend to poll low,” Trump said. “In some cases, really low.”

He also said that if reelected in November he hoped to develop a “friendly” relationship with Iran and to “get along” with China. The GOP has repeatedly criticized Democrats for being too lenient with both countries.

‘Another public meltdown’

The Harris-Walz campaign released a mock advisory for the press conference before it began Thursday, writing in an email that Trump was preparing to “hold another public meltdown in Bedminster, New Jersey.”

“Not so fresh off NABJ, Florida, and Twitter glitches, Donald Trump intends to deliver another self-obsessed rant full of his own personal grievances to distract from his toxic Project 2025 agenda, unpopular running mate, and increasing detachment from the reality of the voters who will decide this election,” the campaign wrote. “These remarks will not be artificial intelligence, but they certainly will lack intelligence.”

Spokesperson James Singer released a written statement afterward that Trump “huffed and puffed his opposition to lowering food costs for middle and working class Americans and prescription drug costs for seniors before pivoting back to his usual lies and delusions.”

Race remains in flux

Despite the new momentum at the top of the Democratic presidential ticket and Trump insisting he’s on track to win, neither candidate yet has a clear path to victory this November, experts say.

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, a nonpartisan publication that analyzes campaigns and rates whether races are leaning toward one political party or the other, has placed six states in its “toss-up” category for the Electoral College.

Arizona’s 11, Georgia’s 16, Michigan’s 15, Nevada’s six, Pennsylvania’s 19 and Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral College votes could go to either Harris or Trump when voting wraps up, according to the political publication’s reporting.

Minnesota, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District and New Hampshire are all rated as leaning toward Harris with a total of 15 votes, while North Carolina and its 16 votes are leaning toward Trump.

All the other states are categorized as “solid” or “likely” going to either Trump or Harris, underlining the close nature of the campaign.

Walter told reporters on a call Thursday that Harris has a chance to sway swing voters during her speech to the Democratic National Convention next week.

“She has an opportunity here in that people are going to be more interested in watching this convention, certainly, than they were a month ago when Biden was on the top of the ticket,” she said. “And it’s an opportunity to speak beyond the Democratic base.”

The prime-time speech will give Harris a forum to address the major criticisms of her presidential run, including that she’s too liberal, isn’t the best person to handle the economy and that she’s weak on immigration policy, Walter said.

Trump and his temperament

Greg Strimple, president of GS Strategy Group, which is partnering with the Cook Political Report on a swing state project looking at voters’ views toward the candidates, said one of the bigger challenges for Trump’s campaign is getting the candidate to stay on message.

“This race has shifted from being a referendum on Biden’s age and economy to being a referendum on Trump and his temperament,” Strimple said on the call. “And despite the fact that Donald Trump is unable to get out of his way at the moment, his campaign is running ads that are right on message.”

If Trump and his campaign aligned to push their belief that Harris is “too liberal, too inexperienced and a continuation of Biden on the economy,” that could help them to regain ground in polling and with voters ahead of Election Day, he said.

“There’s a lot of talk right now about the race being over, and I just kind of caution everyone that there is a path for Trump — it’s just whether he can take it,” Strimple said.

Patrick Toomey, a partner at BSG, which is also part of the swing state project, said on the call that voters shouldn’t rule out ups and downs in support for the candidates in the months ahead, citing potential upheaval from hurricane season or the ongoing wars in the Middle East.

“It’s just worth keeping in mind how many dramatic twists and turns there have been in this race so far,” Toomey said. “And the idea that because we’ve had this reset now things are set and nothing is going to change going forward, would be a mistake.”

In this year’s battle for control of Congress, Republicans aim to increase their slim majority in the House of Representatives and flip the Senate, while Democrats are hoping to hang onto their majority in the upper chamber and regain control of the House (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The 2024 battle for control of Congress centers on just a handful of Senate races and about two dozen House seats, putting considerable pressure on those candidates to win over voters as party leaders and super PACs funnel millions of dollars into their campaigns.

The incumbents representing those states and congressional districts will spend nearly all of their time campaigning between now and Election Day, with Congress in session just three weeks ahead of Nov. 5. They’ll be fighting off challengers who will be on the home front the entire time.

Republicans aim to increase their slim majority in the House of Representatives and flip the Senate, while Democrats are hoping to hang onto their majority in the upper chamber and regain control of the House.

Experts interviewed by States Newsroom said the outcome will be determined by multiple factors, including turnout, ticket splitting and the trajectory of the presidential campaign, which underwent an abrupt change with the exit of President Joe Biden and the nomination of Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic candidate.

At stake is whether Harris or Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, faces a Congress friendly to their ambitions or another two years of a deeply divided government in the nation’s capital. Biden has struggled with a GOP House and a Senate narrowly controlled by Democrats during the past two years.

“There’s a lot of energy on both sides for these congressional races, because of just how close the margins are going to be in the House and Senate,” said Casey Burgat, assistant professor and legislative affairs program director at George Washington University.

Senate GOP control?

The Senate is trending toward a Republican majority, though that will be determined by voters in Michigan, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, all of which are considered toss-ups by the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, a respected non-partisan publication.

If the GOP picks up any one of those four seats, that would give Republicans at least a 51-seat majority in the chamber after winning the West Virginia seat that’s currently held by Joe Manchin III, thought to be nearly certain in the GOP-dominated state.

Democrats maintaining those four seats as well as three others classified as “lean Democrat” by the Cook Political Report would leave control of a 50-50 Senate to the results of the presidential election, since the vice president casts tie-breaking votes in that chamber.

The Senate map is highly favorable to Republicans, who are defending 11 seats in safely red states, while Democrats are trying to hold on to 23 seats, with seven of those in purple states.

While the entire 435-member House of Representatives is up for reelection every two years, senators are elected to six-year terms, leaving about one-third of the chamber up for reelection in evenly numbered years.

Eyes on Montana

Robert Saldin, professor of political science at the University of Montana, said during an interview that Democratic Sen. Jon Tester will need to get voters in the state who support Trump to split their tickets if Tester is going to secure reelection.

“One of the secrets to Tester’s success over the years is that he has been able to distinguish himself from stereotypes of the national Democratic Party,” Saldin said. “And that’s going to be really important again, obviously, because Trump is on the ticket, and is certainly going to carry the state by a very wide margin.”

Republican challenger Tim Sheehy could potentially have a bit of an easier time getting elected this November in the deeply Republican state, he said.

“All he has to do is get people who are voting for Trump to also vote for him. And in fact, he can probably lose some tens of thousands of voters and still be okay,” Saldin said.

Sheehy, however, is somewhat disadvantaged by not having run in a competitive GOP primary, leaving him to move directly into a high-stakes general election.

“He is a political novice,” Saldin said. “He didn’t have a practice run in the primary. And here he is fresh out of the gate in one of the most expensive, most watched, most hyped Senate elections in the country. And so he’s having to learn as he goes.”

One factor that could benefit Tester over Sheehy is a ballot question addressing abortion access in the state that is likely to go before voters in November, Saldin said.

“That should give at least a little nudge in the direction of the Democrats,” Saldin said.

A dozen other states have approved or could approve abortion ballot questions, including Arizona, Florida, Maryland and Nevada.

In Ohio, edging away from national politics

Paul A. Beck, academy professor of political science at The Ohio State University, said Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has sought to separate himself from national political figures throughout this reelection bid.

“I think he really wants to make this a local contest, a statewide contest, not a national contest,” Beck said. “And so he’s going to do everything he can to not appear on the stage with the Democratic nominees for president, and everything he can to try to define himself as somebody who is above partisan politics.”

Brown was elected to the House in 1992 before winning election to the Senate in 2006. He secured reelection in 2012 and 2018, though Republican candidate Bernie Moreno is looking to end that streak this year.

Beck said a ballot question about redistricting could help boost turnout, potentially increasing Brown’s chances.

“It’s going to energize voters and is going to produce higher turnout on the left than it will on the right, and that could be a factor in 2024,” Beck said.

Incumbent clout

Sitting members of Congress have historically held an advantage that may help the party that holds more members seeking to return to Capitol Hill for the 119th Congress.

“Reelection rates in the House have never dropped below 85%, and have recently stretched to highs of 98% in 2004 and 97% in 2016,” according to analysis from Miro Hall-Jones at OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan organization that reports on the role of money in U.S. politics. “While the Senate is more susceptible to shifts in public opinion — reelection rates dropped as low as 50% in 1980 at the dawn of the Reagan Revolution — incumbent senators have retained their seats in 88% of races since 1990.”

Every single one of the 28 senators seeking reelection two years ago was able to convince voters in their home states to give them another term, marking the first time that happened in American history, according to the analysis.

Michigan and Arizona Senate races could then present a bigger challenge for Democrats, since both those seats are open due to the upcoming retirements of Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

Michigan is currently rated as a toss-up by the Cook Political Report while Arizona is rated as “lean Democrat.”

In the House, the 11 seats held by Republicans and considered by the Cook Political Report to be toss-ups all are held by an incumbent seeking reelection, while two of the Democrats’ 11 toss-up seats are open.

House majority

The contest for who controls the House after November is “razor thin,” said Burgat from George Washington University. With Republicans holding on by a slim margin, Democrats only need a net gain of four seats to capture the majority.

“Whether it goes Democratic or Republican, it’s not going to be by much,” Burgat said.

While Democrats and Republicans will focus much of their attention on the 22 toss-up races, they’ll also be funneling resources toward the campaigns that are rated as only leaning in their direction, as opposed to being likely or solid seats.

The Cook Political Report has eight seats held by GOP lawmakers as leaning in Republicans’ favor while 14 races, all Democratic-held seats except one, are in districts that “lean Democrat.”

That makes a total of about 44 competitive House races, according to the Cook Political Report’s analysis.

Among the closely watched congressional districts:

• Both parties are eyeing open seats in California, Colorado, Michigan and Virginia.

• Michigan’s 7th and 8th districts, respectively opened by Democrats Elissa Slotkin, who is seeking the state’s open Senate seat, and the retiring Dan Kildee, are rated by the Cook Political Report as toss-ups.

• Virginia’s 7th Congressional District, being vacated by Democrat Abigail Spanberger, who will focus on a run for governor, is expected to lean blue.

• California Democratic Rep. Katie Porter’s district also leans towards Democrats. Porter decided to leave the seat for an unsuccessful Senate run.

• Colorado’s 3rd, abandoned by Republican Lauren Boebert, who shifted to a friendlier district, leans Republican, according to the Cook Political Report.

• One open seat each in Maryland and New Hampshire is rated as likely Democrat by the prognosticator.

DCCC ads

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is throwing big money where races are competitive, zeroing in on 15 media markets including those in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. The official campaign arm of House Democrats announced a $28 million initial ad buy in June, spending double on digital ads compared to 2022, according to the organization.

The DCCC maintains that House Democrats “have always had multiple paths to reclaim the majority in November — including our 27 Red to Blue candidates in districts across the country working to defeat extreme Republicans who are out-of-touch with their communities,” spokesperson Viet Shelton told States Newsroom in a written statement.

Shelton said voters are “fed up with these politicians who are more interested in obeying Trump, voting for abortion bans, and giving tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations, while ignoring the needs of the middle class.”

The DCCC sees pickup opportunities in the 16 districts Biden won in 2020 that are currently held by Republicans.

Among them are five seats in California, four in New York, two in Arizona, and one respectively in New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nebraska also saw incumbent GOP Rep. Don Bacon’s district go to Biden.

The switch to Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket could boost challengers in heavily college-educated districts, according to the Cook Political Report’s latest analysis of the field.

Those include Arizona’s 1st Congressional District held by GOP Rep. David Schweikert, New Jersey’s 7th occupied by freshman Thomas Kean Jr., and New York’s 17th held by Mike Lawler, also in his first term. All are rated as Republican toss-ups by the Cook Political Report.

Frontline candidates

But the DCCC campaign has vulnerable Democratic incumbents to worry about as well. The organization has identified 31 as “frontline” members, meaning their purple districts are what campaigners describe as “in play.”

Among them is 40-year Democrat Marcy Kaptur, who has held Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, in the state’s northwest region, since 1983.

Other vulnerable Democrats include Reps. Yadira Caraveo in Colorado’s 8th, Jared Golden in Maine’s 2nd, Don Davis in North Carolina’s 1st, Gabe Vasquez in New Mexico’s 2nd, Emilia Sykes in Ohio’s 13th, Susan Wild and Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania’s 7th and 8th districts, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez in Washington’s 3rd.

The National Republican Congressional Committee did not respond to requests for comment, but the House GOP campaign arm announced in late June a $45.7 million initial ad buy across 29 media markets, with large chunks going to metro areas in Los Angeles; New York City; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Anchorage, Alaska; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Portland, Oregon; and Omaha, Nebraska.

The ad buy — an offensive to “to grow our majority,” NRCC Chair Richard Hudson said in a press release — will specifically target 13 districts currently held by Democrats.

The virus, also referred to as bird flu or H5N1, has been found in wild bird and domestic poultry flocks within the United States for years. But the ongoing outbreak in dairy cattle has forced animal and human health experts to establish testing for a new community of agriculture workers and livestock (Spencer Platt/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON —  The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to embark on a year-long study beginning next month that will test samples for evidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza from former dairy cattle moved into meat production.

Emilio Esteban, the under secretary for food safety at the USDA, told reporters on a call Tuesday the new testing program follows three studies undertaken during the spring and summer that all found beef in the nation’s food supply is safe to eat.

“However, we want to move forward with an additional step,” Esteban said. “And what this means is that when those carcasses are tested, they are held and are not going to go into commerce until we get the results back.”

The virus, also referred to as bird flu or H5N1, has been found in wild bird and domestic poultry flocks within the United States for years. But the ongoing outbreak in dairy cattle has forced animal and human health experts to establish testing for a new community of agriculture workers and livestock.

The news of additional testing for the country’s meat supply came alongside the results of a study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that reinforced the safety of pasteurized dairy products.

Steve Grube, chief medical officer for the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said that the most recent round of dairy product testing included 167 foods that were processed in 27 states in June and July.

“None of the product samples contained viable H5N1, reaffirming that pasteurization is effective,” he said. “The second survey was intended to address geographic and product gaps from the initial sampling of the commercial milk and dairy product supply that the FDA conducted during April and May.”

Testing milk in bulk tanks

Federal officials have also launched a voluntary program for farmers to test the milk in bulk tanks for H5N1, a step that’s intended to make it easier for them to move their cows between states without having to individually test each one.

Eric Deeble, deputy under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at USDA, said the department’s Farm Service Agency has approved 23 of the 35 applications it has received so far to help ease the financial burden on dairy farmers who take their herds out of production after testing positive.

The program — known as Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-raised Fish — has approved more than $1 million in payments.

The price paid to farmers is based on a formula that includes the price of milk from the preceding month as well as the number of dairy cattle that contract H5N1.

Deeble said on the call with reporters that of the approved applications, a dozen are from Colorado, which has seen a sharp increase in the number of positive H5N1 tests within its dairy industry.

Deeble argued the uptick is due to certain factors within the state and cautioned people against assuming that if testing was increased in other areas of the country, the number of positive H5N1 tests for dairy cattle would spike.

“I don’t think that it is accurate necessarily to extrapolate from the situation in Weld County, Colorado,” Deeble said. “Weld County and Colorado dairy in particular is rather unique in the degree to which the dairies are all closely associated with one another; both spatially and the way in which there is a lot of movement between the facilities.”

“It is a tightly integrated dairy community that’s isolated from much of the rest of the state, and there is a lot of connectivity between the premises in the way in which they use vehicles, support services, milk trucks,” Deeble added.

During the last 30 days, five states have had dairy cattle test positive for H5N1, including Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Texas.

Colorado holds a disproportionate number of cases with 26 of the dairy herds to test positive, while the other four states combined hold a total of six herds.

Other mammals diagnosed with H5N1 during the last six weeks are overwhelmingly in Colorado, which has found the virus in house mice, deer mice, domestic cats, a desert cottontail and a prairie vole.

Effect on cats

Public health officials said during the call Tuesday they are beginning to look more closely at when and why cats are being affected by the spread of H5N1.

Barn cats as well as those that hunt outside, coming into regular contact with wild birds that hold a reservoir of H5N1, have tested positive for the virus before.

But a report from the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association earlier this month noted that two of the six cats diagnosed with H5N1 in that state this year “were indoor only cats with no direct exposures to the virus.”

Public health officials on the call were unable to answer a question about how indoor-only cats would have come into contact with H5N1.

Experts on the call cautioned that as fall approaches, wild birds will begin migrating and dairy farmers will likely ship their cattle at higher rates, both of which could lead to an uptick in the number of positive cases of H5N1 being reported in dairy cattle as well as other animals.

Lia Chien contributed to this report. 

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson listen during during remarks at a Capitol Menorah lighting ceremony at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 12, 2023. The leaders have presided over a Congress that has enacted just 78 laws since forming in January 2023 (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Congress plans to spend just 35 days between now and the end of the year in the nation’s capital, a fitting end to one of the least productive sessions in decades.

The deeply divided 118th Congress so far has placed just 78 public laws on the books, a fraction of the hundreds enacted during prior sessions, regardless of whether one party held control or voters elected a divided government. While there’s time left to enact a handful of laws, the number is nearly certain to remain low.

Over the past several decades, lawmakers have become accustomed to bundling several bills together into sweeping legislative packages instead of voting on them individually, but that doesn’t entirely account for how unproductive this Congress has been.

Members have sought to approve bipartisan legislation on immigration policy and border security, railway safety, the farm bill, tax law and children’s online safety at various points during the last 19 months — but all those major initiatives failed to make it across the finish line.

Lawmakers have been able to reach consensus on must-pass items like the annual government funding bills, but did so six months behind schedule. They are on track to miss their deadline again this year, which will mean yet another stopgap spending bill.

What is the problem?

While election-year politics and a truncated amount of time on Capitol Hill hampered lawmakers’ productivity, there are numerous other factors dragging down this Congress.

Molly Reynolds, senior fellow in governance studies at the nonprofit Brookings Institution, said Democrats are working to flip control of the House away from Republicans’ narrow majority, while at the same time the GOP is projecting it will push Democrats out of power in the Senate.

Those ambitions add “an additional structural layer” to the typical disagreements within Congress, she said.

Infighting within each of the political parties, as well as Democrats and Republicans moving further away from each other on policy goals, has contributed to the intransigence, she said.

“Those divisions within the parties pale in comparison to the size of the difference between the parties,” Reynolds said. “And so, that does make it more challenging to find issues on which both sides are willing and interested to come to the table.”

A bipartisan trio of senators spent months negotiating a deal on immigration just to have the agreement disintegrate when Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump came out in opposition. That disappointing outcome makes members of Congress reluctant to tackle tough issues, she said.

“When members put in the hard work to try and reach a compromise and then don’t have the backing of their leadership, it doesn’t necessarily incentivize them to come back to the table and try to do that same thing again in the future,” Reynolds said.

Speaker drama set the tone 

The 118th Congress included more than its fair share of drama and bickering. The turmoil prevented the Republican House and Democratic Senate from agreeing on much of anything other than the bare minimum, with even must-pass legislation finalized months behind schedule.

House Republicans set the tone for their razor-thin majority in January 2023 when they trudged through 15 rounds of voting over several days and nights before California Rep. Kevin McCarthy secured the speaker’s gavel.

McCarthy made several backroom deals during the stalemate and elicited anger from members of the party’s right flank, who nearly came to blows on the floor as he sought to lock in the necessary support.

Less than nine months later, the House voted to oust McCarthy from the speaker’s office. The GOP then kept the chamber frozen for several weeks as members voted behind closed doors to put forward four nominees, before Louisiana’s Mike Johnson garnered the votes necessary on the floor to lead his party and the chamber.

McCarthy, who repeatedly swore he would never quit, then did just that in December.

Senate border deal goes to pieces

The Senate has spent much of its time confirming President Joe Biden’s nominees, rarely breaking from that pattern to negotiate necessary items like the annual defense policy bill, government funding measures and legislation that avoided a default on the national debt.

Senators appeared to be on the cusp of making bipartisan changes to the nation’s border security and immigration policy following painstaking negotiations between Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. It would have been the most sweeping immigration legislation in years.

But that fell apart in February after Trump signaled he didn’t want to lose the border and immigration as an election issue or see Biden claim a victory.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, had said the deal was necessary to move an emergency spending bill for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan through the chamber, though he later reversed course.

Congress finally approved $95 billion in military and humanitarian assistance in April after House Republicans added in a ban on the social media app TikTok that would kick in if ByteDance, the Chinese parent company, didn’t sell the platform — one of the most significant laws of the year as it turned out.

Congress has also failed to negotiate a new version of the five-year farm bill, following months of delays and differences of opinion on how much nutrition assistance for low-income Americans should be in the package.

Few laws passed

The 78 laws enacted this Congress pale in comparison to earlier sessions.

During the 116th Congress, when the GOP controlled the Senate and Democrats held the House, lawmakers reached agreement on 344 measures that went on to become law.

When Democrats held control of both chambers and the presidency during the 117th Congress, they approved more than 360 measures that would later become law, the vast majority of which required bipartisan support to move through the Senate.

Lawmakers have consistently enacted more than 280 public laws during their two-year sessions, going back to at least the 82nd Congress, which began in 1951 and ended the following year.

During that seven-decade span, the number of laws enacted per Congress fluctuated, reaching a low of 283 during the 112th Congress, which lasted from January 2011 through January 2013, and a high of 1,028 during the 84th Congress, which took place in 1955 and 1956. The number of laws enacted was consistently in the 400s or 500s, if not higher, during those years.

Reynolds pointed out during her interview with States Newsroom that not all laws are created equal — some simply rename post offices or are confined to one issue, while others bundle several major pieces of legislation together in one package and have a much greater impact than other public laws.

Congress, she noted, used to pass the annual government spending bills individually, but over time has settled into a pattern of approving just one or two omnibus spending packages, which roll together all dozen of the bills.

Other examples of this include the Democrats’ signature health care, tax and climate change package, approved in the summer of 2022, known as the Inflation Reduction Act. When the GOP had unified control of Congress during the first two years of the Trump administration, they passed an overhaul of the nation’s tax code in just one bill.

“If we look at the data on the number of public laws, and we look at the data on the number of pages of public laws, we do see that, on average, they have been getting longer,” Reynolds said. “Having said all of that, when we actually do dig into what the 118th Congress has been up to, it has not been an especially productive Congress.”

Lame-duck session on the way

Lawmakers are set to return from their summer recess for a three-week session in September, before breaking again until after Election Day.

Members are expected to draft and vote on a stopgap spending bill to avoid a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. But not much else is likely to move through as attention turns even more toward Nov. 5.

The House Appropriations Committee has approved all 12 of its spending bills for fiscal 2025 while the Senate committee has voted to send 11 to the floor. The two chambers, however, are working off very different spending levels and don’t seem inclined to conference their bills until after they learn who will control Congress next year.

The lame-duck session, which spans the time between the election and when the new Congress convenes, is scheduled to last five weeks spread through late November and December.

During that time, GOP leaders in the House and Democratic leaders in the Senate may seek to pass their overdue government funding bills and the annual defense policy bill.

There are several other bills that have passed one chamber or the other with bipartisan majorities or have strong bipartisan support through co-sponsors, which lawmakers could seek to move through to the president’s desk. But much of that will be determined by the outcome of the elections as well as whether there is any violence or unrest connected with the results.

How to explain it 

Members of Congress interviewed by States Newsroom had varying answers for what they tell constituents back home about this Congress’ accomplishments.

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat, said that he speaks with voters about the laws enacted during the previous Congress, when Democrats had unified control of government, as well as this Congress.

“Well, first of all, I tend to talk about the sweep of accomplishments, right? Both this Congress but also the previous Congress where we were enormously productive, right?” Van Hollen said. “So usually I don’t limit it to that timeline.”

Van Hollen said he was optimistic that Congress would be able to complete its work on the dozen annual government funding bills later this year.

“Obviously, we’ve been able to adequately fund government agencies,” Van Hollen said. “So that may be a low bar, but in this divided Congress, it is something that I point to, because we’ve worked on the Appropriations Committee, at least in the Senate, to have bipartisan products.”

Kansas GOP Sen. Jerry Moran said he predominantly talks with constituents about his work as ranking member on the Veterans Affairs Committee as well as the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations subcommittee.

“I talk about my own particular accomplishments as compared to bragging about Congress in general,” Moran said.

Much of the work that members do while in Washington, D.C., he said, doesn’t resonate with constituents who are focused on their own lives and families.

“No, I don’t think so,” Moran said. “Most people are paying specific attention to things that matter to them.”

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who faces a challenging reelection bid this November, said he tends to put more emphasis on the accomplishments of the upper chamber when talking with constituents back home.

“I think the Senate’s been a lot more productive than the House, but we’ll let voters sort that out,” Casey said.

While the Senate holds the advice and consent power to confirm certain presidential nominees, legislation must pass through both chambers of Congress and avoid the president’s veto pen, if it’s to become law.

Casey said there are several occasions where the House and Senate agreed on major issues, listing off the appropriations bills for the last fiscal year, the emergency spending package for Ukraine and other U.S. allies, and a bill to address fentanyl abuse.

“I think it’s a pretty long list and there’s still more work to do in the fall,” Casey said.

More time at work?

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, criticized the number of days the chamber spends in session every week, saying the calendar has shortened during his decades in the chamber.

“When I came to the Senate 44 years ago, we used to start at 10 a.m. on Monday and go to 4 or 5 on Friday,” Grassley said.

The Senate typically comes into session around 3 p.m. on Monday, with its first vote at 5:30 p.m. The chamber usually holds its last vote of the week on Thursday around 1:45 p.m., with the vast majority of senators heading to cars to leave shortly afterward.

The House keeps to a similar four-day schedule, though its “fly-in day” is sometimes on Tuesday, pushing its “fly-out day” to Friday. That chamber takes its first vote of the week around 6:30 p.m. with its last vote before noon on the fourth day.

“There’s enough work for individual senators to do seven days a week if you want to work,” Grassley said. “But you can’t solve this country’s problems until you get 100 people together, and they’ve got to be together for more than two-and-a-half days a week.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has gained the support of enough delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination, speaks to the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Grand Boule at the Indiana Convention Center on July 24, 2024 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Yesterday Harris spoke to potential voters during a stop in Wisconsin and tomorrow is scheduled to attend an event in Texas (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Enough Democratic delegates selected Kamala Harris to make her the party’s presidential nominee by Friday, during an ongoing virtual vote that began less than two weeks after President Joe Biden ended his reelection campaign.

The vote, which will not officially close until Monday evening, was held in advance of the Democratic National Convention, scheduled to take place in Chicago later this month, to assuage concerns about state registration deadlines that begin in August.

The DNC began laying the groundwork for the virtual nomination months before Biden announced his decision to step aside.

Harris said on a call with supporters Friday that she was happy to have surpassed the threshold needed to win the nomination.

“Of course, I will officially accept your nomination next week once the virtual voting period has closed, but already I’m happy to know that we have enough delegates to secure the nomination,” Harris said.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison encouraged DNC delegates to keep sending in their ballots during the Zoom call, but said the support for Harris so far has been overwhelming.

“I am so proud to confirm that Vice President Harris has earned more than a majority of votes from all convention delegates and will be the nominee of the Democratic Party following the close of voting on Monday,” he said.

“The outpouring of support we have witnessed for the vice president has been unprecedented,” Harrison added. “We knew your ballots would come back quickly. But the fact that we can say today, just one day after we opened voting, that the vice president has crossed the majority threshold and will officially be our nominee next week — folks, that is simply outstanding.”

The virtual roll call vote began Thursday at 9 a.m. Eastern and will conclude Monday at 6 p.m. Eastern. Harris was the only candidate to qualify.

The DNC plans to announce the final results afterward, including a state-by-state breakdown.

One of Harris’ first official acts will be selecting a running mate from a list that holds several governors as well as at least one senator. Her decision will set the tone for the sprint to the ballot box.

Harris and her running mate are expected to hold rallies in swing states next week, including Pennsylvania on Tuesday, Wisconsin and Michigan on Wednesday, North Carolina on Thursday, Georgia and Arizona on Friday, and Nevada on Saturday.

President Joe Biden, joined by relatives of prisoners freed by Russia, delivers remarks in the State Dining Room at the White House on Aug. 1, 2024, on the release of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan from Russian captivity. The two, along with Alsu Kurmasheva, a dual U.S.-Russian citizen and Radio Free Europe journalist, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Washington Post columnist, and others were released in a prisoner exchange with Russia (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The United States and Russia completed a multi-country prisoner swap Thursday that brought home several Americans, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan.

The exchange included a total of 16 people from several countries who were detained by Russia, including seven of its own citizens held as “political prisoners.” Western nations released a total of eight Russians as part of the deal.

President Joe Biden said in White House remarks the negotiations were a “feat of diplomacy” that wouldn’t have been attainable without cooperation from allied nations.

“This deal would not have been made possible without our allies: Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway and Turkey,” Biden said. “They stood with us and they made bold and brave decisions — released prisoners being held in their countries, who were justifiably being held, and provided logistical support to get the Americans home.”

“So if anyone questions if allies matter, they do,” he added.

Biden was accompanied by family members of the three American hostages released Thursday while he gave his remarks. He said they spoke by phone with their loved ones earlier in the day and planned to meet them at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland when their plane landed.

Biden said he tasked staff during his transition into the presidency with determining where Americans were held abroad and working on plans to get them released.

“As of today, my administration has brought home over 70 Americans, who were wrongfully detained and held hostage abroad; many since before I took office,” Biden said. “Additionally, I issued an executive order in 2022, authorizing penalties, like sanctions and travel bans, on those who hold Americans against their will.”

Biden, who is not running for reelection, said he would continue working during his remaining months in office to bring home other Americans who are wrongfully detained.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said during the White House press briefing that officials had completed “one of the largest, and certainly the most complex exchange in history.”

Journalists, dissidents freed

Gershkovich was arrested in March 2023 while reporting for the Wall Street Journal and sentenced to 16 years in prison last month during a secret trial. The Wall Street Journal and U.S. officials have vehemently denied the charges.

Whelan, of Michigan, was arrested in 2018 and convicted of espionage in 2020, on charges he and American officials have repeatedly denied. He was sentenced to 16 years in Russia’s prison system.

Alsu Kurmasheva, a Russian-American journalist who worked for Radio Free Europe, and Vladimir Kara-Murza, who won a Pulitzer Prize for “passionate columns written under great personal risk from his prison cell” were among the prisoners freed in the swap.

Kurmasheva was sentenced to more than six years in prison in July on claims she spread “false information” about Russia’s military, a charge rejected by her family and officials.

Kara-Murza, who holds dual citizenship in Russia and the United Kingdom, is a long-time critic of Russian leader Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine. Russian officials detained him in 2022 and sentenced him to 25 years in 2023.

Prior to his imprisonment, Kara-Murza accused Russian officials of poisoning him.

Biden noted in his remarks that Kara-Murza holds a green card and was a pallbearer with him at Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain’s funeral.

Cheers from Congress

Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, wrote in a statement that Thursday marked “a joyous and long overdue day for Paul, his family, and all who have been working tirelessly to get him back home to Michigan.”

“For the past several years, I have worked with Administration officials, my colleagues, and Paul’s family to press for his release, and I’m beyond relieved that today marks the end of this unimaginable nightmare for Paul and his loved ones,” Peters wrote. “Michigan welcomes him home with open arms.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow released a written statement that Whelan’s freedom was “wonderful news.”

“After more than five years, Paul Whelan is coming home,” Stabenow wrote. “I know the past years have been excruciating for Paul and his family. I’m so glad they will be seeing Paul soon.”

Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, urged the Biden administration to secure the release of Marc Fogel from Russian prison.

“This prisoner swap is good news for Evan Gershkovich, Paul Whelan, and their families, but Marc Fogel is still sitting in a Russian prison,” Casey wrote in a statement.

“Marc Fogel is a teacher from Pittsburgh with chronic health issues whose health has declined significantly during his imprisonment,” Casey added. “His 95-year-old mother, Malphine, fears she will never see him again. As we celebrate the good news of today, we cannot forget about Marc and the Fogel family.”

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said in a statement he was “thrilled” the hostages were returning home, but expressed concern “that continuing to trade innocent Americans for actual Russian criminals held in the U.S. and elsewhere sends a dangerous message to Putin that only encourages further hostage taking by his regime.”

“We should also not forget those Americans who may still be held in Russia, like Marc Fogel and Ksenia Karelina, as well as those held in other countries, including Mark Swidan, Kai Li, and David Lin who are held in China, and Ryan Corbett who is held in Afghanistan,” McCaul said. “We must get all of them home to their families too.”

Sullivan said during the White House briefing that officials were “actively working” to secure the release of Fogel from Russia as well as Americans being held in Syria and Afghanistan.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Ben Cardin said in a statement the release of the Americans “marks a welcome end to a searing nightmare for them and their loved ones.”

“These Americans should never have endured the hardships imposed on them by the Kremlin, but thanks to the unrelenting efforts of the Biden-Harris Administration and their families, including Paul’s sister Elizabeth, Evan’s parents Ella and Mikhail, and Alsu’s husband Pavel, their ordeal has finally come to an end,” Cardin said.

The Maryland Democrat also urged “Americans considering travel to Russia, especially dual nationals, to learn from the experiences of these wrongfully detained Americans and avoid traveling to Russia.”

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump is rushed offstage during a rally on July 13, 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Monday announced the 13 lawmakers who will make up the bipartisan task force investigating the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

“We have the utmost confidence in this bipartisan group of steady, highly qualified and capable Members of Congress to move quickly to find the facts, ensure accountability and help make certain such failures never happen again,” the two wrote in a joint statement.

Johnson said last week the panel will release its final report by Dec. 13, though he expected interim reports along the way. The House voted 416-0 on July 24 to establish the panel.

The task force is expected to dig deeper into the Secret Service’s plans to protect Trump ahead of his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, and how exactly a gunman was able to open fire.

The panel will be chaired by Rep. Mike Kelly, who was at the rally and represents Pennsylvania’s 16th District, which includes the location of the shooting.

Kelly wrote in an op-ed published last week by Newsweek that he believes the task force is critical to “utilize the collective power of Congress as a tool to dig deeper and find the facts.”

“The shooting wounded Mr. Trump, took the life of Corey Comperatore, and injured two other Pennsylvanians,” Kelly wrote. “It’s important that we don’t jump to any conclusions as we begin these investigations. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get the American people the answers they deserve.”

Other Republicans on the task force include Texas Rep. Pat Fallon, Tennessee Rep. Mark Green, Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, Ohio Rep. David Joyce and Florida Reps. Laurel Lee and Michael Waltz.

The top Democrat on the panel will be Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a former Army Ranger.

Crow released a written statement Monday that he would “help lead this bipartisan task force with Chairman Kelly to investigate and fully examine the attempted assassination of former President Trump, and I will treat it like what it is: a solemn, urgent, and necessary responsibility.”

“Political violence has no place in our democracy. Period,” Crow wrote. “We must be united in the belief as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, that political disagreement is settled through rigorous discourse, not violence. I am committed to working with my colleagues to conduct a thorough bipartisan investigation to collect the facts and recommend corrective security measures.”

Democrats named to the task force include California Rep. Lou Correa, Pennsylvania Reps. Madeleine Dean and Chrissy Houlahan, Maryland Rep. Glenn Ivey and Florida Rep. Jared Moskowitz.

Probes ongoing in Congress

Congress has already begun looking into the shooting at the Trump rally, which killed one attendee and injured two others. The gunman was killed at the scene.

U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on July 22, just one day before she resigned in the wake of the assassination attempt.

Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris testified before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security the same day that Cheatle resigned.

The U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Judiciary Committee are scheduled to hold a joint hearing Tuesday on the shooting.

Acting Director of the U.S. Secret Service Ronald L. Rowe, Jr. and Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Paul Abbate are both expected to testify.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched its own investigation into the shooting.

President Joe Biden speaks from the Oval Office of the White House on July 24, 2024 in Washington, D.C. The president addressed reasons for abruptly ending his run for a second term after initially rejecting calls from some top Democrats to do so, and outlined what he hopes to accomplish in his remaining months in office (Evan Vucci-Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden explained his decision not to seek reelection during a prime-time address from the Oval Office on Wednesday, saying now is the time to turn over power to the next generation.

“I’ve made it clear that I believe America is at an inflection point — one of those rare moments in history when the decisions we make now will determine the fate of our nation and the world for decades to come,” Biden said. “America is going to have to choose between moving forward or backward, between hope and hate, between unity and division.”

The 11-minute speech was the first time Biden spoke at length on camera since releasing a letter Sunday withdrawing as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee. He will continue to serve out his term.

Biden has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris, who has received support from enough delegates to clinch the party’s official nomination during a virtual roll call vote slated for early August.

Biden called into a campaign rally earlier this week, but had only given off-camera or brief remarks since announcing his decision to step aside while sidelined with COVID-19.

Calls for Biden to bow out began after his performance during the first presidential debate on June 27 raised significant concerns among Democrats and others about his age and cognitive abilities.

‘Nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy’

Speaking directly to Americans in his address, Biden said he believed his record, leadership and vision for the country’s future “all merited a second term.”

“But nothing, nothing can come in the way of saving our democracy and that includes personal ambition,” Biden said. “So I’ve decided the best way forward is to pass the torch to a new generation. That’s the best way to unite our nation.”

Biden said that while there is “a time and a place for long years of experience in public life,” there is also a time for “younger voices.”

“And that time and place is now,” Biden said.

During his remaining six months in office, Biden said he planned to continue pressing for gun control, reproductive rights, voting rights and an end to all forms of violence, including political.

Biden said he wanted to secure an end to the war in Gaza and bring home the hostages that Hamas took when it attacked Israel on Oct. 7.

He said he planned to press for changes to the Supreme Court, calling it essential for democracy.

Biden also recounted the numerous laws enacted since he became president as well as his efforts to hold the NATO alliance together following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

He said he hoped Americans understood how “grateful” he was for his decades as an elected official.

“I ran for president four years ago because I believed, and I still do, that the soul of America was at stake, the very nature of who we are was at stake,” Biden said.

Harris, he said, has the experience, strength and capability to lead the country following the November elections.

“The great thing about America is here, kings and dictators do not rule — the people do,” Biden said. “History is in your hands, the power is in your hands, the idea of America lies in your hands. We just have to keep the faith and remember who we are.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has gained the support of enough delegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination, speaks to the Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Grand Boule at the Indiana Convention Center on July 24, 2024 in Indianapolis, Indiana. Yesterday Harris spoke to potential voters during a stop in Wisconsin and tomorrow is scheduled to attend an event in Texas (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee will move forward with a virtual nomination vote for its presidential candidate as soon as Aug. 1, after its Rules Committee approved the process on Wednesday.

The DNC has been moving forward with plans to hold a virtual nomination roll call since well before President Joe Biden announced his withdrawal from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place.

The pre-convention vote is necessary to avoid potential legal pitfalls that could arise if the DNC waits to formally nominate its candidate until during its convention in late August, since some states have deadlines to place candidates on their ballots before or during that week.

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison said at the beginning of the Rules Committee’s meeting the party is striving to “execute this nomination with transparency, with fairness and efficiency.”

“Many of you have probably seen the reporting that Vice President Harris has received the expressed support from the majority of pledged delegates and might wonder what that means for this process,” Harrison said.

“Delegates are free to support who they choose and we are glad that they are engaging in this important moment in history,” Harrison said. “As a party we have an obligation to design and implement a fair nomination process for delegates to officially express their preferences through a vote resulting in eventually an official nominee of the Democratic Party who will go on to the top ballot in November.”

Multi-step process

Under the process adopted during the panel’s meeting, Harris as well as other presidential hopefuls have from July 25 through July 27 at 6 p.m. Eastern to register their intent to seek the nomination with the DNC Convention secretary.

Candidates then have until July 30 at 6 p.m. to meet the requirements, including collecting at least 300 signatures from DNC delegates with a maximum of 50 of those people representing any one state.

DNC Rules Committee Co-Chair Leah D. Daughtry said during the live-streamed meeting that if only one presidential candidate qualifies, she expects the virtual roll call would take place on Aug. 1.

If more than one candidate qualifies, Daughtry anticipates the virtual roll call would take place on or around Aug. 3.

Democrats will still hold a ceremonial roll call of the states from the floor of the United Center in Chicago during their convention week, but have argued for months they must certify their nominee beforehand.

‘Consistent with our values’

Minyon Moore, chair of the 2024 Democratic National Convention, said the party has “the guideposts and the expertise in place to ensure that we will do this right and in a manner that is consistent with our values as Democrats.”

“We understand that this is an unprecedented situation but I’m confident that we will find a path forward together,” Moore said.

DNC outside counsel Pat Moore said the virtual roll call will provide an avenue for all 4,699 delegates to cast a vote for the presidential nominee.

The DNC waiting until the in-person convention to officially certify its presidential nominee, he said, would open the party up to lawsuits.

“Make no mistake, we have strong legal arguments in response to any such claims and we’re prepared to make them,” Pat Moore said. “But we also have opponents who are willing to make specious arguments and drag out the process in an effort to confuse voters and muddy the waters. And in some states, we will face an unfriendly judiciary.”

Pat Moore said that ensuring the DNC formally nominates its presidential and vice presidential candidates ahead of any state deadlines is about ensuring voters in every state have their ballots counted in November.

“Past is precedent: Trump and Republicans have already made it 100% clear that they will challenge the validity of the results if they lose on Election Day,” Pat Moore said.

“If we take chances with state processes and deadlines, Republican groups could make the same argument to challenge Democratic votes in the post-election setting, arguing that our nominee should never have been on the ballot in the first place,” Pat Moore added. “We should not and must not give them that opportunity.”

President Joe Biden, first lady Jill Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff view a Fourth of July fireworks display over the National Mall from the Blue Room Balcony on July 4 at the White House (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott).

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee will move forward with the process to formally nominate a presidential candidate Wednesday when one of its committees meets in public amid ongoing efforts to set up a virtual roll call vote ahead of the convention, States Newsroom has been told.

The nomination process has been playing out for months as the DNC committees with jurisdiction have been meeting to iron out the details for a virtual roll call.

The need for a virtual roll call was triggered by deadlines in Ohio and some other states that required the political parties to have their nominee certified before or during the Democratic National Convention, scheduled to take place from Aug. 19 to Aug. 22.

Following President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race and endorse Vice President Kamala Harris, the co-chairs of the DNC Rules Committee announced that it will be the panel’s “responsibility to implement a framework to select a new nominee, which will be open, transparent, fair, and orderly,” according to an individual familiar with their statement.

The committee is scheduled to meet publicly on Wednesday from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern. The meeting will be live-streamed on the DNC’s YouTube page.

DNC Rules Committee Co-Chairs Bishop Leah D. Daughtry and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said the “process presented for consideration will be comprehensive, it will be fair, and it will be expeditious,” according to an individual close to the process who was not authorized to speak publicly.

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., listens during the third hearing by the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building on June 16, 2022 in Washington, D.C. Schiff on Wednesday became the 20th congressional Democrat to call for President Joe Biden to withdraw from his reelection race (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The intraparty effort to convince President Joe Biden to end his reelection bid resurfaced Wednesday, when prominent U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff of California became the latest Democratic member of Congress to go public with his concerns.

Leading Democrats also set an early August window for a virtual roll call to officially name Biden as the party’s 2024 presidential nominee. Members opposed to Biden’s renomination have raised concerns a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s late August convention would ease the president’s path.

Biden’s disastrous debate performance in late June has now led 19 U.S. House Democrats and one senator to publicly call for him to drop his reelection bid, and several more have expressed serious concerns about his candidacy.

Still, Biden, 81, has refused to back down, saying, “I’m the best qualified to govern and I think I’m the best qualified to win.”

Democratic calls regarding Biden’s reelection bid had quieted since the assassination attempt against former President Donald J. Trump over the weekend, which killed one rally goer and left two others injured during a campaign event in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Biden tested positive for COVID-19 after a campaign event in Nevada on Wednesday, according to a statement from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Biden cancelled a later Nevada event and planned to continue working in isolation at his Delaware home, Jean-Pierre said.

Virtual roll call 

Also Wednesday, in a letter obtained by States Newsroom, the co-chairs of the Democratic National Convention Rules Committee wrote to committee members that no virtual roll call voting to determine the party’s nominee will take place prior to Aug. 1.

DNC officials, including Chair Jaime Harrison, said a virtual roll call ahead of the Democratic National Convention, which would typically be the site of an official nomination, was necessary because of an Ohio law requiring nominees to be named at least 90 days before Election Day, making the deadline Aug. 7.

Ohio lawmakers later moved that deadline to September, but Wednesday’s DNC  letter notes that law doesn’t take effect until September. To avoid any risk of lawsuits over ballots in the Buckeye State, the party is moving ahead with a virtual roll call to beat that deadline, the letter said.

The letter specified that the Rules Committee “will not be implementing a rushed virtual voting process, though we will begin our important consideration of how a virtual voting process would work.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has pressed for the DNC to delay the virtual roll call, an individual speaking on background told States Newsroom. Schumer’s push came after he spoke with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and both agreed on delaying the virtual roll call.

Prominent House member

Schiff, a former House Intelligence Committee chair and the lead impeachment manager in the first impeachment of Trump, is perhaps the most well-known nationally of those who have called for Biden to withdraw.

Schiff, who is favored to win a U.S. Senate seat in California after clinching the Democratic nomination in the blue state, called for Biden to step down in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that “while the choice to withdraw from the campaign is President Biden’s alone, I believe it is time for him to pass the torch. And in doing so, secure his legacy of leadership by allowing us to defeat Donald Trump in the upcoming election.”

Schiff said Biden has “been one of the most consequential presidents in our nation’s history, and his lifetime of service as a Senator, a Vice President, and now as President has made our country better.”

Schiff vowed to do everything he can to help whoever the Democratic Party ends up nominating succeed.

“There is only one singular goal: defeating Donald Trump. The stakes are just too high,” he said.

Dems want Biden out

Meanwhile, polling continues to point unfavorably for Biden’s reelection bid.

Nearly two-thirds of Democrats say they want Biden to step down from the race and let the party select someone else, according to an AP-NORC poll published Wednesday.

Three-quarters of Democratic respondents between the ages of 18 and 44, and 57% of those 45 or older favored Biden stepping aside.

On the flip side, 73% of Republicans believe Trump — whom Republicans officially nominated at their convention this week — should continue his bid for the White House. Only a little over one-quarter of Republicans want him to withdraw.

Debate performance repercussions 

Since the shaky debate performance nearly three weeks ago, a slow but steady progression of congressional Democrats has urged Biden to withdraw from the race.

U.S. Sen. Peter Welch is the only senator within the Democratic Party who has called for the president to drop out, a stance he took in a Washington Post op-ed.

“For the good of the country, I’m calling on President Biden to withdraw from the race,” the Vermont Democrat wrote last week.

So far, the public calls have come from members of Congress who represent Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

A spokesperson for the Biden-Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday, July 17, 2024. In this photo, he holds a news conference at the 2024 NATO Summit on July 11, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday, according to statements from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and the president’s doctor.

“Earlier today following his first event in Las Vegas, President Biden tested positive for COVID-19,” Jean-Pierre wrote in her statement. “He is vaccinated and boosted and he is experiencing mild symptoms.”

Biden will return to Delaware to isolate while continuing to work and the White House will provide “regular updates,” she said.

An accompanying statement from the president’s physician said that Biden began experiencing a runny nose, cough and “general malaise” on Wednesday afternoon.

“He felt okay for his first event of the day, but given that he was not feeling better, point of care testing for COVID-19 was conducted, and the results were positive for the COVID-19 virus,” the doctors statement said, later adding that a PCR confirmation test is pending.

“His symptoms remain mild, his respiratory rate is normal at 16, his temperature is normal at 97.8 and his pulse oximetry is normal at 97%,” the doctor said. “The President has received his first dose of Paxlovid. He will be self-isolating at his home in Rehoboth.”

Biden arrived at the Las Vegas, Nevada, airport around 3:20 p.m. local time to fly back to the East Coast, according to a White House pool report.

The president said he felt “good” before walking “cautiously up the stairs” to Air Force One, according to the report.

Biden previously tested positive for COVID-19 in July 2022 before being diagnosed with a rebound case later the same month.

Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita speaks with Katie Pointer Baney, managing director of Government Affairs for Delta Defense and the U.S. Concealed Carry Association, during an event the organization hosted Tuesday at The Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

MILWAUKEE — Republicans speaking at a concealed carry event on Tuesday, just days after a gunman attempted to kill their presidential nominee, insisted the party won’t change its stance on Second Amendment rights.

Attendees at the one-hour session, hosted by the U.S. Concealed Carry Association near the Republican National Convention, weren’t actually able to conceal carry any firearms, since it was held inside a Secret Service security checkpoint.

But those in attendance heard from Trump campaign senior adviser Chris LaCivita and three members of Congress about what the plans will be for gun rights should they sweep Congress and the White House during November’s elections.

“I think what we’ll see is a continuation of supporting and defending the Second Amendment and where that really comes into play is the judiciary, the appointment of judges,” LaCivita said. “And so that is clearly, you know, one of the largest impacts that President Trump had clearly during his first term was a remake of the judiciary.”

Florida U.S. Rep. Kat Cammack, speaking with reporters after the event, said that the GOP was “absolutely not” considering changing its support for Second Amendment rights. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Saturday was injured by a gunman at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. One person was killed and two others were injured. The shooter was killed at the scene.

“I stand 1,000% convicted in the fact that the Republican Party will always stand for the Constitution and the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms,” Cammack said. “One deranged individual, who clearly needed help, he is not going to change the United States Constitution and our right as Americans to bear arms. Absolutely not.”

Cammack said it is “shocking” and “inappropriate” for any lawmaker to call for changes to gun laws in the wake of “tragic events” like mass shootings. She criticized Democrats for not making similar comments following the Trump shooting.

“The thing that has been really shocking to me, is you see right after tragic events, many politicians and pundits come out and they say, ‘This is the time to have the discussion about gun control’ when clearly… that’s not appropriate,” she said.

“In this case, I have gone through and seen the messaging of some of my colleagues, and I don’t see those same calls for gun control in the aftermath of this incident,” Cammack added. “So it makes me think that there’s a bit of a disingenuous attitude on some of the remarks that they’ve been making.”

Hunters, gun owners

During the panel discussion, Cammack said Republicans need to talk to the 10 million hunters and gun owners throughout the country who are not registered to vote to ensure they change that and go to the polls in November.

“That is a missed opportunity for us as 2A advocates to make sure that we are actually doing the work to secure that victory, because we cannot turn the corner into January and start talking about how we’re going to do national reciprocity, if we don’t have the votes,” Cammack said.

A nationwide concealed carry reciprocity law would likely require a state with stricter concealed carry laws to recognize an out-of-state concealed carry permit.

USCCA writes on its website that “(r)eciprocity simply means a concealed carry permit or license is valid beyond the issuing state.”

“States may have full reciprocity, recognizing all out-of-state permits, or partial reciprocity, specifying agreements with select states,” the website states, referring to state-level laws. “The negotiation and recognition of these agreements depend on the willingness of states to cooperate. Whatever the agreement, carriers must follow the laws of the state in which they are carrying, and those may be different from the issuing state. “

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald said during the panel that gun rights advocates must pay close attention to lawmakers at the state and federal level, since changes to gun ownership laws are generally incremental and not sweeping.

“I think that, you know, we have to be diligent as legislators that protect the Second Amendment to say, ‘No, wait a minute, you know, this is a constitutional guarantee right,’” Fitzgerald said. “So you can continue to pass bill after bill after bill with some cute type of name that would lead people to believe that it’s about security. But we have to be diligent.”

The Republican presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump, left, and vice presidential candidate, U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, appear Monday on the first day of the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

MILWAUKEE — Donald Trump made a surprise appearance at the end of the first day of the Republican National Convention on Monday, his first public event since a gunman attempted to kill him during a campaign rally last weekend.

Trump, who became the party’s official presidential nominee earlier in the day, walked into the arena with a large white bandage covering his right ear, to wild applause from delegates and supporters.

He sat in a segment of the Fiserv Forum designated for Trump family members and special guests. Florida Rep. Byron Donalds sat to his right, with Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana seated to his left.

Trump listened to speeches from four people, including Amber Rose, a model and rapper, who told attendees that Trump was the best option in the presidential race.

Sean O’Brien, president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, called Trump “one tough S.O.B” during the final scheduled speech Monday night.

O’Brien also pressed Republicans opposed to organized labor to rethink their stance, while crediting Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley for listening to unions.

“In the past, the Teamsters have endorsed GOP candidates, including Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush,” O’Brien said. “But over the last 40 years, the Republican Party has rarely pursued a strong relationship with organized labor. There are some in the party who stand in active opposition to labor unions — this too, must change.”

O’Brien added that “at the end of the day, the Teamsters are not interested if you have a D, R, or an I next to your name.”

“We want to know one thing: What are you doing to help American workers?”

U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, speaks to reporters June 27 in the spin room following the CNN Presidential Debate between U.S. President Joe Biden and Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, at the McCamish Pavilion on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus in Atlanta. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

MILWAUKEE, Wis. — Donald Trump announced Ohio U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate Monday during the first day of the Republican National Convention, capping off months of speculation about who would get the nod as his vice presidential pick.

Vance has not been a member of Congress long, having less than two years experience as a senator and having voted against major bipartisan bills throughout his tenure in the upper chamber.

Before becoming a U.S. lawmaker, Vance served in the Marine Corps during the Iraq war, worked as a venture capitalist and wrote a book about growing up in Appalachia. He holds a law degree from Yale.

“After lengthy deliberation and thought, and considering the tremendous talents of many others, I have decided that the person best suited to assume the position of Vice President of the United States is Senator J.D. Vance of the Great State of Ohio,” Trump, who will be nominated as the 2024 Republican presidential candidate on Thursday night, posted on social media.

“J.D. has had a very successful business career in Technology and Finance, and now, during the Campaign, will be strongly focused on the people he fought so brilliantly for, the American Workers and Farmers in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and far beyond….,” Trump added.

Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, received the news while he was speaking to reporters at the foundation’s all-day policy fest in downtown Milwaukee.

“You will see a broad smile on my face,” Roberts said, adding that he and Vance are “good friends” and that he “personifies” Heritage’s values.

“He listens. He’s thoughtful. He’s funny. He and I had a similar upbringing, challenging childhood, so we hit it off like that when we met. He’s obviously going to be his own man. He’s got to work with our conservative standard bearer,” Roberts said. “The second thing is in terms of policy, he understands the moment we’re in in this country, which is that we have a limited amount of time to implement great policy on behalf of forgotten Americans.”

Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence has distanced himself from Trump since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol building — requiring Trump to find a different person to join him on the ticket this year.

Pence was in the Capitol that day, when a pro-Trump mob attacked police officers, broke into building and disrupted Congress’ certification of the electoral college votes for President Joe Biden.

Pence has been critical of how the Republican Party has changed under Trump’s leadership, including rejecting how the platform evolved on abortion this year.

The Biden-Harris campaign immediately slammed the selection of Vance.

“Donald Trump picked J.D. Vance as his running mate because Vance will do what Mike Pence wouldn’t on January 6: bend over backwards to enable Trump and his extreme MAGA agenda, even if it means breaking the law and no matter the harm to the American people,” said Biden-Harris 2024 Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon.

“Over the next three and a half months, we will spend every single day making the case between the two starkly contrasting visions Americans will choose between at the ballot box this November: the Biden-Harris ticket who’s focused on uniting the country, creating opportunity for everyone, and lowering costs; or Trump-Vance – whose harmful agenda will take away Americans’ rights, hurt the middle class, and make life more expensive  – all while benefiting the ultra-rich and greedy corporations.”

Vance background

Vance was born in Middletown, Ohio in August 1984. After graduating from high school in 2003 he enlisted in the Marine Corps, later deploying to the Iraq War.

He attended Ohio State University, where he received a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy in 2009. Vance went on to attend Yale Law School, graduating in 2013 before working for the law firm Sidley Austin LLP.

Vance gained national attention with his 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis,” which tells the story of him growing up in poverty in the Rust Belt. However, the book faced backlash from many historians and journalists over his depictions of Appalachia and the people who live there.

The 39-year-old worked in San Francisco in the tech industry as a venture capitalist. He served as a principal at one of the firms of Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal.

Vance later moved back to Ohio and raised more than $90 million to co-found a venture capital firm in Cincinnati, Narya Capital, which received financial backing from Thiel.

Vance ran his first campaign for U.S. Senate in 2022, defeating Democratic candidate and former U.S. House Rep. Tim Ryan with 53% of the vote.

Since being sworn into office in January 2023, Vance has voted against several big-ticket legislative items, including the law that raised the debt limit, the national defense policy bill and two must-pass government funding packages.

Aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan

Vance also voted against legislation that held $95 billion in military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan as well as a ban on TikTok within the United States unless the social media app’s Chinese parent company sold it.

Vance was among the 18 senators who voted against that emergency spending bill heading to President Joe Biden’s desk. Another 79 senators voted to approve the legislation.

During floor debate on the supplemental spending package, Vance spoke out against sending more aid and arms to Ukraine, arguing that there were parallels between its fight to eject Russia from its borders and the U.S. war in Iraq.

“And the same exact arguments are being applied today, that you are a fan of Vladimir Putin if you don’t like our Ukraine policy, or you are a fan of some terrible tyrannical idea because you think maybe America should be more focused on the border of its own country than on someone else’s,” Vance said.

“This war fever, this inability for us to actually process what is going on in our world to make rational decisions is the scariest part of this entire debate,” he added.

Bipartisan efforts

Vance has also worked across the aisle on bipartisan legislation during his somewhat brief tenure in the U.S. Senate.

He sponsored a bill alongside Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, Pennsylvania Sens. Bob Casey and John Fetterman, all three of whom are Democrats, to address rail safety in the aftermath of the Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine.

Vance wrote in a statement released when the bill was unveiled in March 2023 that with the legislation “Congress has a real opportunity to ensure that what happened in East Palestine will never happen again.”

“We owe every American the peace of mind that their community is protected from a catastrophe of this kind,” Vance wrote. “Action to prevent future disasters is critical, but we must never lose sight of the needs of the Ohioans living in East Palestine and surrounding communities.”

The bipartisan legislation has yet to advance in the Senate to either a committee markup or a floor vote.

Ashley Murray contributed to this report.

Workers prepare the stage for the Republican National Convention at the Fiserv Forum on July 13, 2024, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The convention will be held in Milwaukee from July 15-18 (Scott Olson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Thousands of Republicans will gather in Milwaukee beginning Monday for the party’s presidential nominating convention — a typically joyous occasion that will likely take on a different tone this year after a gunman shot at Donald Trump, injuring him, on Saturday.

Trump, who will be formally nominated as the GOP’s presidential nominee on Thursday, still plans to attend the convention and officials stress the four-day event will go on as normal.

The shooting at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania is being investigated as an attempted assassination and the FBI identified the shooter as Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pa. The U.S. Secret Service “neutralized the shooter, who is now deceased,” the Secret Service said.

Trump, who has been declared “safe” by the Secret Service, posted on social media Sunday morning that he was still looking “forward to speaking to our Great Nation this week from Wisconsin.”

“Thank you to everyone for your thoughts and prayers yesterday, as it was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening,” Trump wrote. “We will FEAR NOT, but instead remain resilient in our Faith and Defiant in the face of Wickedness. Our love goes out to the other victims and their families. We pray for the recovery of those who were wounded, and hold in our hearts the memory of the citizen who was so horribly killed. In this moment, it is more important than ever that we stand United, and show our True Character as Americans, remaining Strong and Determined, and not allowing Evil to Win.”

Senior advisors to the Trump campaign Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita released a statement hours after the shooting on Saturday to say that the former president wasn’t changing his plans.

“President Trump looks forward to joining you all in Milwaukee as we proceed with our convention to nominate him to serve as the 47th President of the United States,” Wiles and LaCivita wrote in a joint statement. “As our party’s nominee, President Trump will continue to share his vision to Make America Great Again.”

Reince Priebus, chairman of the MKE 2024 Host Committee, said in a separate statement that he was “heartbroken that reports indicate that at least one innocent person has been killed and perhaps others have been injured. This horrific violence has no place in America.”

“Guests have already begun to arrive in Wisconsin, and we look forward to working with the Republican National Committee to welcome everyone to Milwaukee this week,” Priebus added.

Political party conventions are designated as National Special Security Events, or NSSEs, and come with extremely heightened security compared to a typical campaign rally.

The Secret Service will have at least two security perimeters around the Fiserv Forum in downtown Milwaukee and the city itself will be swarming with additional federal, state and local law enforcement officers.

The convention will still host speeches throughout the week and the dozens of side events hosted by state Republican Parties and conservative organizations were still expected to continue, though likely with a more somber mood than was planned before the shooting.

President Joe Biden (Official White House Photo by Adam Schultz)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden denounced political violence during brief remarks Saturday night after a shooting abruptly ended a campaign rally that Donald Trump was holding in Pennsylvania and injured the former president.

Biden declined to say if the incident, which is under investigation by the Secret Service, was an assassination attempt.

“I have an opinion, but I don’t have any facts,” Biden said, speaking from the Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, police department, near his vacation home there. “So I want to make sure we have all the facts before I make some comment.”

Biden said he hadn’t spoken to Trump yet, but that he hoped to talk with him by phone soon.

“I have tried to get a hold of Donald. He’s with his doctors. Apparently he’s doing well,” Biden said. “I plan on talking to him shortly. I hope when I get back to the telephone.”

Trump on social media

Trump posted on social media after Biden’s remarks concluded that he wanted to offer “condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured.”

“It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country,” Trump wrote. “Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead.”

Trump added that he was “shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear.”

“I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin,” Trump wrote. “Much bleeding took place, so I realized then what was happening.”

‘We cannot condone this’

Biden said during his public comments the type of violence that took place during the rally was unacceptable and should never happen.

“There is no place in America for this kind of violence. It’s sick,” Biden said. “It’s one of the reasons why we have to unite this country. We cannot allow for this to be happening. We cannot be like this. We cannot condone this.”

Trump, he said, should have been able to have the rally without any violence.

“The idea that there’s political violence or violence in America like this is just unheard of, it’s just not appropriate,” Biden said. “Everybody must condemn it.”

Vice President Kamala Harris also issued a statement saying she had been briefed on the incident.

“Doug and I are relieved that he is not seriously injured. We are praying for him, his family, and all those who have been injured and impacted by this senseless shooting,” she said of Trump.

“Violence such as this has no place in our nation,” Harris wrote. “We must all condemn this abhorrent act and do our part to ensure that it does not lead to more violence.”

A worker helps prepare the Fiserv Forum for the start of the Republican National Convention on July 11, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Republican National Convention will be held in Milwaukee from July 15-18 (Joe Raedle/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Thousands of Republicans will gather in Milwaukee, Wisconsin beginning Monday for the party’s presidential nominating convention — an opportunity for the GOP to showcase its candidates up and down the ballot and unify behind Donald Trump.

The RNC released its trimmed-down party platform the week prior to the convention, after foregoing one entirely in 2020. And while many Republicans in Congress said during interviews they either support it, or hadn’t read it, some were critical it adopts Trump’s position that abortion access be left up to states — one of the top issues in the presidential race.

The platform wraps in traditional party goals as well as others tied to Trump. But it also competes with attention drawn to the Heritage Foundation’s massive far-right Project 2025 policy agenda, which Trump has repeatedly disavowed.

Democrats and President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign have targeted the Project 2025 document spearheaded by former Trump administration officials — which says the president should work with Congress on abortion policy — as an example of an extreme GOP agenda.

The Heritage Foundation is scheduled to host an all-day “policy fest” on Monday at the RNC Convention, headlined by conservative media personality Tucker Carlson and former Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz, among others.

The RNC convention could also be the showcase for Trump announcing his running mate, after months of speculation about who would get the nod. As of Friday, Trump had not revealed his pick, though speculation centered around Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.

There was also little information available ahead of the convention as to the lineup and schedule of speakers in official sessions throughout the week, which culminates with the nomination of Trump on Thursday and his speech.

Unhappiness over abortion stance

GOP members of Congress said in interviews they would have liked to have seen a national abortion ban in the platform.

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, the top Republican on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he preferred the GOP’s last official platform, which called for a nationwide abortion ban after 20 weeks.

“I’m pro-life and I like the way it was previously,” Cassidy said.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said while she hadn’t read the full platform, she had read the section about abortion, as well as a few others.

“I am pro-life and I am always going to be adamantly pro-life,” Ernst said. “And I think what we’re going to have to do is work very hard to educate the American people on the value of life. So would I like to see more robust (language) in the platform? Certainly. But that’s not the way it’s going to be. So we’re just going to have to continue fighting for life.”

Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford said the platform places a “new emphasis on the states” to regulate abortion access, largely as a result of Trump pressing for that structure in an attempt to appeal to independent voters, though Lankford said it won’t bind Republicans in Congress.

“Obviously, this is a platform that’s wrapped around him, it’s a new model for presidential platforms to be wrapped around the candidate,” Lankford said.

Trump has shifted the GOP platform away from pressing for a nationwide law, in part, because he doesn’t believe the votes are there at the moment, Lankford said. But that doesn’t mean Republican lawmakers will stop talking about their beliefs or working to build support for a nationwide law.

“It’s a common ground statement,” Lankford said of the platform. “But for those of us that believe in the value of every single child — and we should do whatever we can to be able to protect the lives of children — we will continue to be able to speak out on those things.”

Mike Pence, former Indiana governor and vice president during Trump’s first term in office, released a statement saying the “RNC platform is a profound disappointment to the millions of pro-life Republicans that have always looked to the Republican Party to stand for life.”

“Unfortunately, this platform is part of a broader retreat in our party, trying to remain vague for political expedience,” he wrote.

Pence called on delegates attending the RNC convention to “restore language to our party’s platform recognizing the sanctity of human life and affirming that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed.”

Shorter, vaguer

The 16-page platform is much shorter than years past and is at times vague about the goals the Republican Party hopes to accomplish if voters give them unified control of the federal government during the next two years.

The official document was put together behind closed doors.

It says that after nearly 50 years, “because of us,” the ability to regulate abortion has “been given to the States and to a vote of the People.”

“We will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF (fertility treatments),” the new RNC platform states.

The 2016 Republican Party platform, by contrast, was 66 pages long and mentioned abortion more than 30 times, calling for Congress to pass legislation that banned abortion after 20-weeks gestation.

That previous platform also said that the RNC respected “the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.”

‘Nothing going to happen up here in the Senate’

Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas said that it’s extremely unlikely either political party gets the 60 votes needed to advance abortion legislation through the legislative filibuster in the Senate, making the states the more practical place to enact laws.

“There’s not 48 votes on this issue one way or the other up here, let alone 60,” Marshall said. “There’s nothing going to happen up here in the Senate in the near future, if forever.”

Marshall said that Republicans “won” in getting the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and that the issue is now left up to voters.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said a full GOP platform shorter than in previous years is a good development, since people might actually read it.

“Nobody’s gonna read the Sears catalog, like previous ones,” Grassley said. “And I think if we can get people to read the Republican platform, it’ll be a great thing for the campaign. I think it’d be a great thing for government generally.”

Grassley said he couldn’t make a judgment about the new abortion language, since he didn’t remember the language from the 2016 platform.

Voters expect all of GOP on same page

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt said she hadn’t read through the platform, but that she was encouraged some anti-abortion groups expressed support for the new language.

“I’m proud to be pro-life and proud to support the party and President Trump,” Britt said.

Voters, she said, expect to hear from a unified Republican Party during convention week as well as from one that focuses on policy.

“I think people want a secure border, they want stable prices, they want a more secure world,” Britt said. “And I think we need to talk about those things — talk about not only where we are, but our vision for moving forward.”

Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, didn’t directly answer a question about whether he supports removing a nationwide abortion ban from the party’s platform.

“Look, I think they did good work on the platform,” Daines said. “We’re a party that believes in life, we’re a pro-life party. I think they did a good job.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said that voters want to hear Republicans unified at the convention.

“I think they want to hear a unifying message for the future,” Capito said. “I think they want to hear how things will be different and better, especially on the economy and border and international. And I just think, you know, a united front is probably the most important.”

Arkansas Sen. John Boozman said the GOP should emphasize how it differs from Democrats during the RNC Convention.

“I think that they need to hear a message of unity and the contrast between what Republicans can accomplish on inflation and border,” Boozman said.

National treasures, women’s sports

The RNC’s new platform includes familiar GOP policy goals as well as some that came along after Trump became the party’s nominee eight years ago.

For example, it calls for Republicans to “promote beauty in Public Architecture and preserve our Natural Treasures. We will build cherished symbols of our Nation, and restore genuine Conservation efforts.”

It also calls on GOP lawmakers to “support the restoration of Classic Liberal Arts Education,” though it doesn’t detail that particular issue.

The rest of the platform is pretty standard for the types of initiatives and policy goals that Republicans have traditionally pursued.

For example, it calls on Republicans to slash “wasteful Government spending,” “restore every Border Policy of the Trump administration,” make provisions from the 2017 tax law permanent and “will keep men out of women’s sports.”

Trump running mate

The RNC convention could also include Trump announcing who will campaign with him at the top of the ticket.

His last running mate, Pence, began distancing himself from Trump after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which included calls from the mob to kill Pence, and the construction of a scaffold for public hangings on the National Mall.

Pence was in the Capitol building that day and was removed from danger by his security detail as the pro-Trump mob beat police officers, broke into the building and disrupted Congress’ certification of Biden as the country’s next president.

Trump, without revealing his vice presidential selection, wrote Thursday on social media that he is “looking very much forward to being in Milwaukee next week.”

“The great people of Wisconsin will reward us for choosing their State for the Republican National Convention. From there we go on to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! See you next week,” he posted on Truth Social, his online platform where he regularly publishes comments and statements.

The vice presidential candidate typically gives a speech on Wednesday night, so Trump is expected to make his announcement before then.

Project 2025

Conservative operatives striving to elect Trump to the White House have been circulating the 922-page Project 2025 plan for nearly 15 months.

Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, in conjunction with more than 100 organizations, the policy agenda titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” presents a roadmap should Trump win in November.

The “goal is to assemble an army of aligned, vetted, trained, and prepared conservatives to go to work on Day One to deconstruct the Administrative State,” according to the organization’s description of the mandate.

The lengthy mandate sets forth core promises to “restore the family” and overhaul government agencies.

The document states that “(i)n particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support while deploying existing federal powers to protect innocent life and vigorously complying with statutory bans on the federal funding of abortion.”

The mandate is just one pillar under the multi-pronged “Project 2025: Presidential Transition Project” that also includes a presidential administration training academy and a 180-day “playbook” aimed “to bring quick relief to Americans suffering from the Left’s devastating policies.” The project is led by two former Trump administration officials.

The Biden-Harris campaign and Democrats have repeatedly criticized Project 2025 in comments and campaign emails.

“If implemented, Project 2025 would be the latest attempt in Donald Trump’s full on assault on reproductive freedom,” Vice President Kamala Harris said at a rally in North Carolina on Thursday.

Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said during a press conference Thursday that the plan is “dangerous, it’s dastardly and it’s diabolical.”

“Project 2025, the Trump and extreme MAGA Republican agenda, will criminalize abortion care and impose a nationwide ban on reproductive freedom,” Jeffries said.

Trump and his campaign deny any connection to the project.

“I know nothing about Project 2025. I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it,” Trump wrote Thursday on his social media platform Truth Social.

“The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part,” he continued. “By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!”

Trump has delivered keynote speeches at Heritage Foundation events multiple times. An analysis by CNN showed 140 former Trump administration staffers were involved in the project. Kevin Roberts, Heritage Foundation president, told the New York Times in April 2023 that Trump had been briefed on the project.

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, while justices hear oral arguments about whether federal law protects emergency abortion care (Sofia Resnick/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate gridlocked over reproductive rights on Wednesday, when Republicans blocked Democrats from advancing a measure that would have expressed support for abortion access.

The failed 49-44 procedural vote was just one in a string of votes Senate Democrats are holding this summer to highlight the differences between the two political parties on contraception, in vitro fertilization and abortion ahead of the November elections.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bill toward final passage.

“This is a plain, up-or-down vote on whether you support women being able to make their own reproductive health care decisions,” Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during floor debate. “It doesn’t enforce anything. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s actually just a half-page bill, simply saying that women should have the basic freedom to make their own decisions about their health care.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar said that women and their doctors, not politicians, should make decisions about abortion and other reproductive health choices.

“This is our current reality, but it doesn’t have to be our future,” Klobuchar said. “This is a pivotal moment for America: Are we going to move forward and protect freedom, which has long been a hallmark of our nation, or are we going to go further backwards in history — not just to the 1950s but to the 1850s.”

Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow urged support for the legislation, saying women should be able to make decisions about their own health care, lives and futures.

“That’s what this vote is about and we’re not going to give up until we have those freedoms fully protected,” Stabenow said.

No Republican senators spoke during debate on the bill ahead of the vote.

The two-page bill would not have actually changed or provided any nationwide protections for abortion access.

The legislation, if enacted, would have expressed a “sense of Congress” that abortion rights “should be supported” and that the nationwide, constitutional protections for abortion established by Roe v. Wade “should be restored and built upon, moving towards a future where there is reproductive freedom for all.”

The Biden administration released a Statement of Administration Policy earlier in the week, backing the bill.

“Today, more than 20 states have dangerous and extreme abortion bans in effect, some without exceptions for rape or incest,” the statement said. “Women are being denied essential medical care, including during an emergency, or forced to travel thousands of miles out of state for care that would have been available if Roe were still the law of the land. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time.”

Trio of bills offered, blocked

The blocked procedural vote on Wednesday came just one day after Democrats went to the floor in an attempt to pass three other bills on reproductive rights through the fast-track unanimous consent process.

That involves one senator asking “unanimous consent” to pass legislation. Any one senator can then object, blocking passage of the bill. If no one objects, the bill is passed.

The maneuver is typically used to approve broadly bipartisan measures or for lawmakers to bring attention to legislation without moving it through the time-consuming cloture process that can take weeks in the Senate.

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto on Tuesday tried unsuccessfully to pass her bill, which would have barred the government from preventing travel “to another state to receive or provide reproductive health care that is legal in that state.”

Forty Democratic or independent senators co-sponsored the legislation.

During brief floor debate, Cortez Masto said the bill “reaffirms that women have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes it crystal clear that states cannot prosecute women — or anyone who helps them — for going to another state to get the critical reproductive care that they need.”

“Elected officials in states like Tennessee and Texas and Alabama are trying to punish women for leaving their state for reproductive care, as well as anyone who helps them, including their doctors or even their employers,” Cortez Masto said. “Why? Because for these anti-choice politicians, this is about controlling women.”

Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith objected to the unanimous consent request, saying that while members of the anti-abortion movement “most certainly do not oppose any individual’s freedom to travel across this great country,” they do have concerns the measure would hinder prosecution of crimes, like human trafficking.

Bill would ‘take us backward,” Budd says

Republicans blocked a second bill, sponsored by Murray, that would have blocked state governments from preventing, restricting, impeding, or disadvantaging health care providers from providing “reproductive health care services lawful in the state in which the services are to be provided.”

The bill was co-sponsored by 30 Democratic or independent senators.

“When I talk to abortion providers in Spokane, where they see a lot of patients fleeing restrictive abortion bans from states like Idaho, they are terrified that they could face a lawsuit that will threaten their practice and their livelihood, just for doing their jobs, just for providing care their patients need — care that is, once again, completely legal in my state,” Murray said. “We are talking about people who are following the law and simply want to provide care to their patients. This should be cut-and-dried.”

North Carolina GOP Sen. Ted Budd objected to the request, arguing the bill “would make it easier for unborn life to be ended.”

“The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision brought renewed hope to Americans who believe in the sanctity of each and every life, including life in the womb,” Budd said. “But this bill would take us backward.”

Following Budd’s objection to passing the bill, Murray said his actions “made clear” that GOP lawmakers “have no problem whatsoever with politicians targeting doctors in states like mine, where abortion is legal.”

“I think that pretty much gives the game away,” Murray added.

Grant program

Democrats also tried to pass legislation from Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin that would have established a federal grant program to bolster the number of health care providers who receive “comprehensive training in abortion care.”

That bill had seven Democratic or independent co-sponsors in the Senate.

“For our top-ranked medical schools, a post-Roe reality sowed chaos as students and their instructors wondered how future doctors in our state would have access to the full slate of training necessary to safely practice obstetrics and gynecology,” Baldwin said.

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, an OB-GYN, blocked the request, saying that the federal government “should not be spending taxpayer dollars to encourage medical students and clinicians to take life when their principal duty, their sacred oath, is to protect life and to do no harm from conception to natural death.”

Repeated attempts throughout 2024

Democrats sought to advance legislation on access to contraception and in vitro fertilization despite the 60-vote legislative filibuster earlier this year, and failed to get the necessary Republican support each time.

In early June, Democrats tried to advance legislation that would have protected “an individual’s ability to access contraceptives” and “a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.”

A week later, Democrats tried again, this time with legislation that would have provided a right for people to access IVF and for doctors to provide that health care without the state or federal government “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements.”

Collins and Murkowski were the only Republicans to vote to move the bills toward a final passage vote.

Alabama GOP Sen. Katie Britt attempted to pass an IVF access bill through the unanimous consent process in mid-June, but was unsuccessful.

That measure, which she co-sponsored with Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, would have blocked a state from receiving Medicaid funding if it prevented IVF.

The legislation, which had three co-sponsors as of Wednesday, didn’t say what would happen to a state’s Medicaid funding if lawmakers or a state court defined life as starting at conception.

That’s what led IVF clinics in Alabama to temporarily shut down earlier this year after the state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos at IVF clinics constitute children under state law.

The Alabama state legislature has since provided civil and criminal protections for IVF clinics.

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks to reporters as he leaves a meeting at the U.S. Capitol on July 08, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Jeffries reiterated his support for President Joe Biden, saying the party is backing Biden to defeat the Republican presidential candidate, former President Donald Trump (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats appeared to quell some inner tumult over supporting President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, after highly anticipated internal meetings Tuesday showed the president retained considerable support from the Congressional Black Caucus and other lawmakers in public statements.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, Democrats from both chambers largely declined to detail their closed-door conversations. But they said they are lining up behind Biden, nearly two weeks after his debate performance set in motion prolonged speculation about his fitness for office. The party meetings among lawmakers were the first since the June 27 debate.

Biden issued a defiant letter to party members Monday saying that he will not exit the race, and Democrats interviewed by States Newsroom insisted they are uniting as the party heads toward his official nomination later this summer.

Lawmakers left open whether perfect harmony was achieved — a New Jersey Democrat at day’s end joined a handful of other Democrats urging Biden to drop out — but one message was clear: They do not want to see former President Donald Trump in the Oval Office again.

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada briskly exited the House chamber and said Democrats are focused on “beating Donald Trump and electing Democrats to the House majority.” The CBC met with Biden virtually Monday night.

When asked whether Biden’s unsteady debate performance and the anxiety it’s caused presents an obstacle for House colleagues running in tight races, Horsford answered, “The president is the nominee.”

Another defection

While a steady stream of Democrats said they would back Biden, New Jersey Democrat Mikie Sherrill became the seventh House Democrat urging Biden to drop out of the race.

“I know President Biden cares deeply about the future of our country. That’s why I am asking that he declare that he won’t run for reelection,” Sherrill posted on social media shortly before 5 p.m. Eastern.

Those who spoke out against Biden’s reelection bid in previous days included Angie Craig of Minnesota, Lloyd Doggett of Texas, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, Mike Quigley of Illinois and Adam Smith of Washington.

Rep. Jerry Nadler, of New York, who was among those calling for Biden to exit the race in a private call on Sunday, walked back his comments Tuesday when he told reporters “we have to support him.”

At the White House briefing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said expressions of support from members of the Congressional Black Caucus were key to solidifying Biden’s backing among Hill Democrats.

“We respect members of Congress,” Jean-Pierre said. “We respect their view. But I also want to say there’s also a long list of congressional members who have been very clear in support of this president.”

Jean-Pierre cited strong statements of support from CBC members Joyce Beatty of Ohio and Troy Carter of Louisiana following the caucus’ virtual meeting with Biden on Monday.

Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia said Tuesday members had an opportunity to “express themselves” during the closed-door House Democratic meeting.

“Leadership listened, and I think what needs to happen is we need to all come together to decide that we’re not going to be a circular firing squad with Joe Biden in the middle,” Johnson said. “We are going to abide by his decision, and if his decision, as he has previously stated, is to stay in, then he’s gonna be our nominee and we need to all get behind him.”

When asked by States Newsroom whether House Democrats in vulnerable seats now face more potholes on the road to November, potentially costing the party a chance to flip the House, Johnson replied, “No, I think (Biden’s) got a strong record to run on, and the opposition, Donald Trump, has to run against that strong record. So we need to start running on our record, and against the nominee of the other party. And the American people know the difference.”

‘We concluded that Joe Biden is old’

Democratic senators, leaving a nearly two-hour private lunch meeting later Tuesday, had similar comments to their House counterparts, reiterating the president is their nominee, though worries remained.

Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman said that everyone knows about Biden’s age, but that alone won’t lead the party to bump him out as their nominee.

“We concluded that Joe Biden is old, and we found out, and the polling came back that he’s old,” Fetterman said. “But guess what? We also agreed that, you know, like, he’s our guy, and that’s where we’re at.”

Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, a longtime friend and close ally of Biden, argued that Trump is a far worse choice than Biden.

“Donald Trump had a terrible debate,” Coons said. “Donald Trump said things on that debate stage over and over and over that were outright lies filled with vengeance, violated the basic standards of our democracy, and yet we are spending all of our time talking about one candidate’s performance and not the other. Donald Trump’s performance on that debate stage should be disqualifying.”

Coons said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke during the meeting, saying “broadly constructive things, just sort of setting the groundwork of our discussion.”

Coons said he was “not gonna get into the private conversation we just had in the caucus” when asked whether anyone at the meeting called for Biden to not be the nominee. But he added that “folks expressed a range of views in ways that I think were constructive and positive.”

Vice President Kamala Harris’ viability as a potential replacement for Biden didn’t come up during the meeting, Coons said.

Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock underlined his support for Biden following the meeting, saying “what I think is most important right now is what the American people think.”

“We’re getting feedback on that. I think it’s important for the president in this moment, in any moment, to hear what the people are saying. That’s what democracy is all about,” Warnock said. “Donald Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to believe much in democracy. He said he wants to be a dictator on day one, and with their ruling several days ago, the Supreme Court is setting the table for him to continue to be a dictator. That’s what’s at stake in this election: democracy itself.”

Asked whether Biden is the best person to defeat Trump, Warnock said Biden is “making that case as campaigns do” and “hearing back from the American people.”

Asked whether Biden can win Georgia, he said: “I can tell you that no one thought I could win Georgia but I did.”

Project 2025 fears

Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont told States Newsroom that House Democrats’ meeting led to some cohesion.

“The unity as it exists is that we’re all completely committed to making sure that Trump is not the next president,” Balint said. “That’s the unity, and the unity of wanting the president to be out campaigning vigorously on his record.”

Balint, holding in her hand a copy of the Stop the Comstock Act, said, tearing up, that she worries about a nationwide abortion ban and other priorities in the far-right Project 2025 publication.

The nearly 1,000-page policy roadmap is a product of the Heritage Foundation in anticipation of Republicans gaining control of the White House and Congress. Trump and his campaign have repeatedly distanced themselves from the document.

“Trump is a demagogue, I am the child of a man whose father was killed in the Holocaust. I’m really like ‘What can I do day in and day out to make sure we don’t lose the House?’ because we are the blue line,” Balint said.

The Comstock Act is an 1873 law that could provide an avenue for a future Republican presidential administration to ban the mailing of abortion medications. Democrats in the House and Senate have introduced companion bills to repeal the sections of the law that could hinder abortion access.

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told States Newsroom that Biden has “actively thrown weight behind the lawmaking and policy ideas of younger and progressive members,” and that she remains committed to supporting him.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden said after the Democratic senators’ meeting that he wasn’t “even gonna get into that,” when asked whether he wants Biden to remain the nominee.

“The fact is, the president has said he is running,” Wyden said. “So, that’s the lay of the land today.”

Swing state senators

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who faces a challenging reelection bid this November, said he didn’t want to characterize what other senators said about Biden during the meeting.

Casey said it’s up to political pundits and analysts to determine how Biden remaining the presidential nominee might affect the Pennsylvania race as well as others.

“I’ve got to continue to do my work in the Senate and also to be a candidate, so I can’t sit around being an analyst,” Casey said.

When back home in the Keystone State, he said, voters tend to talk to him more about issues they’re concerned about, including reproductive rights and the cost of living.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly declined to comment on Democrats’ meeting and referred to his prior statements about Biden.

Kelly on Monday evening told reporters that the differences between Biden and Trump “could not be clearer.”

Biden, he said, has “delivered to the American people over and over again,” on climate change, prescription drug prices, infrastructure, and semiconductor manufacturing.

“On the other hand, you have Donald Trump, a convicted felon and now a criminal who has no business running for president,” Kelly said.

“Joe Biden is our nominee. Millions of people voted for Joe Biden to be on the ballot,” Kelly said. “He’s on the ballot, and I truly believe he’s gonna win in November.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said when asked about Biden during a press conference that “as I’ve said before, I’m with Joe.”

Schumer declined to answer questions about Democrats potentially nominating a different presidential candidate and about Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray’s statement Monday night critical of Biden.

“As I’ve said before, I’m with Joe,” Schumer reiterated.

Murray’s statement said Biden “must seriously consider the best way to preserve his incredible legacy and secure it for the future.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, deferred a question about Biden’s debate performance to Democratic leadership.

Maryland, New Mexico senators comment

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen said he had to leave the lunch early for a previously scheduled meeting with the Dutch prime minister, but said he doesn’t have concerns Biden will make the right choice on whether to stay in the race.

“Look, as I’ve said, I trust the president’s judgment, he understands the stakes in this election and he’s in the best position to make this decision,” Van Hollen said.

New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján said Democrats discussed several issues during the closed-door meeting, but declined to talk about what was said, though he reiterated his support for Biden’s candidacy.

“I look forward to voting for President Joe Biden to be president of the United States,” Luján said.

Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff said the meeting was “a constructive caucus discussion,” and that he supports Biden’s reelection campaign.

Delaware Sen. Tom Carper said he spoke during the meeting, but declined to specify what his comments were.

Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper said the lunch went “fine,” but declined to opine on where the party was moving on Biden’s nomination nor his own beliefs about the president’s ongoing candidacy.

Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed declined to answer any questions after the lunch.

House Republicans: ‘Democrats had misled us’

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana on Tuesday accused the Democratic Party of covering up Biden’s “glaring problem.”

“The Democrats had misled us. They need to be held accountable for that,” he said, during the House GOP’s regularly scheduled press conference.

Johnson also said the 25th Amendment “is appropriate” in this situation. If Biden’s Cabinet declares he is unfit for office, Vice President Kamala Harris would take over presidential duties.

“The notion that the 25th Amendment would be appropriate here is something that most Republicans and frankly, most Americans would agree with,” he said.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Elise Stefanik of New York, chair of the House Republican Conference, echoed Johnson’s concerns.

Stefanik called Biden “unfit to be our commander in chief” and accused the Democratic Party of concealing Biden’s mental acuity. “The cover-up is over and accountability is here.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden sat down for an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America” co-anchor and “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos in Wisconsin on the campaign trail on July 5 (Photo used with permission of ABC News).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden on Friday in his first televised interview since the presidential debate defended his reelection bid and rejected calls that he should step aside amid growing anxiety among some Democrats about his mental and physical state.

The 22-minute interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos came as some lawmakers and other prominent Democrats have said Biden should suspend his campaign and let someone else become the official nominee.

But Biden said that’s unnecessary, distilling his actions during the June 27 debate as simply a “bad night.”

“It was a bad episode, no indication of any serious condition,” Biden said. “I was exhausted. I didn’t listen to my instincts in terms of preparing and it was a bad night.”

Biden refused to answer a question about what he would do if allies and friends in Congress urged him to leave the presidential campaign.

“I’m not going to answer that question. It’s not going to happen,” Biden said.

Members of Congress and Democratic governors have expressed concern with Biden remaining the presumptive nominee ever since he struggled to answer questions and had moments where he appeared confused during the first presidential debate.

Biden brushed aside Virginia Sen. Mark Warner’s plans to convene Democratic senators on Monday to discuss the future of Biden’s bid, which multiple news organizations reported Friday. Both chambers of Congress will return to Washington next week.

“Mark is a good man,” Biden said, before incorrectly claiming Warner “tried to get the nomination” for president — Warner in 2006 said he would not make a bid. “Mark and I have a different perspective. I respect him.”

Biden won’t commit to cognitive exam

Stephanopoulos pressed Biden during the interview on whether he really has the mental and physical stamina to remain president for another four years, and whether Biden is being honest with himself about his age.

“I believe so,” Biden said. “I wouldn’t be running if I didn’t think I did. Look, I’m running again because I think I understand best what has to be done to take this nation to a completely new level.”

Biden repeatedly declined to commit to taking a cognitive exam, suggesting that his schedule and daily work load are evidence enough he’s up to the task of being president.

“I have a cognitive test every single day. Every day I have that test, everything I do,” Biden said. “You know, not only am I campaigning, I’m running the world.”

Biden added that there are 125 days left in the campaign and that people should watch him in the months ahead to determine if he’s suitable to be reelected to the highest position in the government.

In Wisconsin, Biden points to Trump flubs

The ABC News interview aired just hours after Biden held a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, where he repeatedly criticized the Republican presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

This November’s presidential election, Biden said, should be about character, honesty and decency.

“Let’s focus on what really matters: We’re running against the biggest liar and the biggest threat to our democracy in American history,” Biden said. “That’s not hyperbole.”

Biden sought to shift the attention from his performance at the debate to flubs Trump has made over the years, including in a Fourth of July speech in 2019 when the former president said securing the airports was essential during the Revolutionary War.

“He said George Washington’s army won the Revolution by taking control of the airports from the British,” Biden said before crossing himself somewhat jokingly. “Talk about me misspeaking — airports from the British in 1776? It’s true, he is a stable genius.”

Trump, at the time, criticized the teleprompter for the comment.

Biden during the rally listed off what he views as his accomplishments, including canceling some student loan debt, nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, signing a same-sex marriage bill, approving gun safety policies and working with Congress on a sweeping climate change law.

“I’m not letting one, 90-minute debate wipe out three-and-a-half years of work,” Biden said.

During the next four years, Biden said, whoever holds the Oval Office will appoint at least two new justices to the Supreme Court.

Should that be Trump, a recent ruling from the justices on presidential immunity could lead to a challenging time for the country, Biden said.

“For over two centuries, America’s been a free, democratic nation,” Biden said. “And I’ll be damned if in the year 2024 — just two years before our 250th anniversary as a nation — I’ll let Donald Trump take this away.”

Illinois Dem congressman says Biden should quit

Biden briefly spoke with reporters in the White House pool after the rally, saying he was determined to stay in the race and brushing aside calls from some lawmakers for him to withdraw.

When asked by a reporter about Warner suggesting Biden let another person take over as the party’s presidential candidate, Biden said Warner “is the only one considering that.”

Later in the evening, Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley said on MSNBC that Biden should step aside.

“Mr. President, your legacy is set. We owe you the greatest debt of gratitude,” Quigley said. “The only thing that you can do now to cement that for all time and prevent utter catastrophe is to step down and let someone else do this.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has performed more than 17,000 tests for avian influenza on cattle, with 139 dairy herds throughout a dozen states (Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Public health officials have diagnosed a Colorado farm worker with the country’s fourth human case of highly pathogenic avian influenza, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the state’s department of health reported Wednesday.

The Colorado case, the state’s first this year related to spread from dairy cattle to humans, was reported after an adult man working on a farm in the northeast region of the state experienced conjunctivitis or pink eye.

The unidentified man, who has since recovered, was being monitored by public health officials after dairy cattle on the farm he worked on tested positive for H5N1, or bird flu.

Dr. Rachel Herlihy, an epidemiologist with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, wrote in a statement announcing the diagnosis that the “risk to most people remains low.”

“Avian flu viruses are currently spreading among animals, but they are not adapted to spread from person to person,” Herlihy wrote in the statement. “Right now, the most important thing to know is that people who have regular exposure to infected animals are at increased risk of infection and should take precautions when they have contact with sick animals.”

Nationwide, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has reported bird flu in 139 dairy herds throughout a dozen states, including Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.

In Colorado, there have been 27 dairy herds where at least one cow has tested positive for H5N1 since the outbreak began, according to data from the USDA.

The other three human cases reported this year include two dairy farm workers in Michigan and one in Texas. Two of the cases were pink eye, while one of the Michigan patients experienced mild respiratory symptoms.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment wrote in its announcement Wednesday that 2022 was the last time a person within the state was diagnosed with bird flu. That time it was the result of infected poultry.

Bird flu continues to spread in the country’s poultry flocks as well, though that industry has had much more time to adjust and get its workers used to wearing personal protective equipment than dairy farmers have.

More than 97 million poultry throughout 48 states have tested positive for H5N1 since this outbreak began in January 2022, according to reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Unlike dairy cows, which generally recover from bird flu, poultry flocks are culled after a diagnosis, making response and recovery to H5N1 vastly different.

The USDA began a voluntary pilot program for dairy farmers in late June that gives them the option to have their herd’s bulk milk tanks tested. The program is designed to make it easier for farmers to transport their cows across state lines.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced Tuesday that it would direct $176 million to Moderna to develop a vaccine that would inoculate people against the virus.

President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden dropped by a Waffle House in Atlanta to pick up food shortly after midnight following his debate with Donald Trump on Thursday, June 27, 2024. He told reporters “I think we did well” when asked about his debate performance (Jill Nolin/Georgia Recorder).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden touched on a flood of criticism of his debate performance during a rally on Friday, while Democrats interviewed on Capitol Hill said the party must figure out a way to reassure voters after what they described as a “terrible” showing and a “bad night.”

Biden, speaking from Raleigh, North Carolina, acknowledged some of the blunders that plagued him during the Thursday night debate on CNN, which included a raspy, low voice and answers that often began one way before veering into a completely separate topic.

“I know I’m not a young man, let’s state the obvious,” Biden said. “I don’t walk as easy as I used to. I don’t speak as smoothly as I used to. I don’t debate as well as I used to, but … I know how to tell the truth.”

Biden, 81, told the crowd that despite the mishaps, he’s still up for four more years on the job and said that his rival, the 78-year-old presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, is a “genuine threat to this nation.”

“When you get knocked down, you get back up,” Biden said. “I would not be running again if I didn’t believe with all my heart and soul I can do this job because, quite frankly, the stakes are too high.”

Outside the Beltway, Democrats continued to try to absorb what they saw on Thursday night. In Colorado, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis would not answer directly when asked about calls from some Democrats for Biden to step aside. In the swing state of Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro as well as other Democrats came to Biden’s defense on social media and on the airwaves.

Hoyer rejects idea of Biden quitting

Back in Washington, D.C., lawmakers had mixed reviews for how Biden performed during the debate, with some saying one bad night shouldn’t lead the party to change its nominee in the weeks ahead, while others said Biden should reassess his decision to run for reelection.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer said Biden “had a bad night,” but said the president still showed respect for “people, the truth and the Constitution.”

“The other candidate, who respects none of those, showed that last night,” he said of Trump.

Hoyer rejected a question about whether Democrats need a new presidential candidate, saying they already had one and it “is Joe Biden.”

“He’s got an extraordinary record of accomplishments,” Hoyer said.

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Angie Craig said it was a “terrible debate.”

“We all have to acknowledge that and Donald Trump lied every time he opened his mouth,” Craig said, adding that she wasn’t worried about November, but focused on flooding in her home state.

Mood on House floor

New York Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks said he didn’t expect that all of a sudden members of the party would “jump ship” from the Biden-Harris ticket, but said Biden has a lot of work to do before Election Day.

“I know Joe Biden. I’ve sat across the room from Joe Biden in some very important meetings,” Meeks said. “And I know that he’s all there and he has the ability to do that. He did not do that last night. But I do know that he has that ability.”

The mood on the House floor Friday morning, however, was less than ideal, he said.

“You can’t hide that, people are not pleased. Nobody’s in there jumping for joy, saying that, you know, ‘That was a great night last night,’” Meeks said. “Is there concern? Yeah, because we know how important it is to make sure that we win this election.”

Meeks declined to speculate about whether Biden will back out of the second debate in September, but said “it might be difficult, maybe, to get out of it.”

Biden, he said, needs to get in front of voters much more before the election through town halls and interviews to provide reassurance.

Meeks also sought to draw a difference between Biden and Trump, saying that the lies Trump told during the debate signal he hasn’t evolved.

“Nothing has changed with reference to Trump. He is still that pathological liar that Lindsey Graham called him. He’s still the con man that Marco Rubio called him,” Meeks said, referring to Republican senators from South Carolina and Florida. “And I definitely don’t want a pathological liar and a con man to be President of the United States of America. It would be bad for us and will be bad for our allies.”

House speaker sees ‘serious problem’

House Speaker Mike Johnson said that Cabinet members should “search their hearts” on what represented the best path forward for the country, about “this alarming situation.”

“I think they know they have a serious problem — but it’s not just political, it’s not just the Democratic Party, it’s the entire country,” Johnson said. “We have a serious problem here because we have a president, who, by all appearances, is not up to the task.”

“This is a very serious moment in American history and it needs to be regarded and handled as such,” Johnson added.

The Louisiana Republican didn’t rule out that the 25th Amendment, which deals with presidential disability and succession, might be appropriate. But he noted that’s up to the Cabinet, not the House.

Trump, during the debate, “showed the temperament, the stamina and the mental acuity that is necessary to do this really important job at this really important time,” Johnson said.

Biden, on the other hand, “showed last night that he was weak, sadly, that he is feeble,” Johnson added.

Democrats are moving forward with plans to nominate Biden as their official presidential candidate before the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in late August.

The all-virtual roll call vote is supposed to take place before Aug. 7, the final date for candidates to get on Ohio’s ballot. The state requires candidates to be officially nominated at least 90 days before the November election.

That means any final decisions about Biden’s candidacy likely need to take place during the month of July.

No need to replace Biden

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Richard Neal said he was taking the “long view” of the campaign and didn’t believe Democrats needed to replace Biden at the top of the ticket.

“I think that we are kind of caught up in a moment where personalities are a big deal in politics,” Neal said. “At the same time, I think that Joe Biden’s got a really good track record to run on … And I think we want to make sure that people see it in the fullness of his presidency.”

Neal said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, won her first debate against Trump, even though Trump went on to win the election.

He also noted that Walter Mondale, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1984, was widely considered to have won his first debate against Republican Ronald Reagan, though Reagan went on to sweep him during the election.

Florida Democratic Rep. Lois Frankel said that “there was only one decent, honest man who reflected my values, and that was Joe Biden.”

Frankel said she wasn’t too concerned about calls for Biden to step down from the top of the ticket, though she said she hasn’t been involved in those talks.

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright said Biden’s performance reminded him of a 2022 debate he had where his own performance was “lousy,”

“He had a tough night,” Cartwright said, adding that he believes Democrats shouldn’t “overreact.”

Cartwright said he didn’t believe Biden’s debate performance would affect how voters in his district, which covers sections of northeastern Pennsylvania, including Scranton, will vote for down-ballot races later this year.

“People split their tickets where I live,” Cartwright said. “They know who I am and they know I’m not the same guy as whoever’s in the White House.”

Republicans react

Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack said Biden’s performance “validated” a lot of the concerns that lawmakers and others had about his “cognitive abilities” heading into the debate.

“But at the end of the day, you have to assume that they’re both still going to be head-to-head in November,” Womack said.

Republicans, he said, need to move “full steam ahead” to hold the House, flip the Senate and win back the White House in November, but that’s only the beginning of the hard work.

“If that happens, we’ve got a couple of years and we need to be able to demonstrate that we’re serious about leading America,” Womack said.

Iowa Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks said it’s up to “Democrats to determine whether or not they feel that their candidate is up to the task of running the country for the next four years.”

“From my perspective, what I saw last night emphasizes to me that he’s not and that I will be voting for President Trump,” Miller-Meeks said. “I thought President Trump’s answers and policies were well reasoned, show that he was very sharp, very in tune and very well-informed.”

Miller-Meeks said it will be challenging for the Biden campaign and Democrats to brush aside concerns about Biden’s mental functioning following the debate.

“I think what has been appearing to a lot of people is now very apparent and difficult to hide, given the performance that everyone saw last night,” Miller-Meeks said.

Florida Republican Rep. Byron Donalds, one of the lawmakers on Trump’s short list for vice president, said that Trump “did what he was supposed to do — demonstrated leadership, demonstrated command talking about the issues that are plaguing this country.”

“As far as I’m concerned, whether it’s Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or anybody else, the Democrat agenda has been a failure. Period.”

President Joe Biden, right, and Republican presidential candidate, former U.S. President Donald Trump, participate in the CNN Presidential Debate at the CNN Studios on June 27 in Atlanta, Georgia. Biden and Trump faced off in the first presidential debate of the 2024 campaign (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump pitched to undecided voters Thursday night during the first debate of the presidential campaign — trading insults over their policy differences, immigration and who represents a threat to democracy.

During the debate from CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta, the two men argued over who can do better for Americans during the next four years on a broad swath of issues, ranging from the economy to climate change to foreign policy. Each repeatedly accused the other of lying.

Biden early in the debate spoke softly at several points, coughed and gave several somewhat confusing answers. At one point, Biden appeared to lose his train of thought and ended an answer with the statement that “we finally beat Medicare.”

The two disagreed sharply over access to reproductive rights, including abortion, with Trump arguing Democrats’ position is “radical” and Biden saying that leaving decisions up to the states has been “terrible” for women.

Biden, 81, and Trump, 78, did not shake hands at the beginning, a break from past debates.

Near the end of the debate, Trump said political violence was “totally unacceptable,” though he went on to downplay the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, defending the conduct of his mob of supporters.

Trump initially did not directly answer a question about whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost. When pressed by moderator Dana Bash, Trump conditioned his answer.

Jabs over personal conduct

Even with rules meant to minimize crosstalk, the debate — moderated by Bash, anchor and chief political correspondent, and Jake Tapper, anchor and chief Washington correspondent — saw many moments of acrimony.

While Trump had harsh words about Biden’s border policy and Biden blasted his predecessor for appointing Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, they saved their harshest criticism for the other’s personal conduct.

Referring to reports that, as president, Trump said veterans killed in action in France during World War II were “suckers and losers,” Biden, invoked his son, Beau, who was a National Guard veteran and later died of brain cancer.

“My son was not a loser and was not a sucker,” Biden told his predecessor, scowling. “You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.”

Trump denied he ever made the remark, first reported in The Atlantic and confirmed in other reports.

Biden at several times attacked Trump’s credibility and truthfulness, saying after one answer, “Every single thing he said is a lie.”

“I never heard so much malarkey in my whole life,” he said in response to another of Trump’s answers.

Trump brought up the conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter, on federal gun charges this year. And he said that Joe Biden could face prosecution for his performance on border security.

Trump and his legal team argued in front of the Supreme Court in April that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trump’s conviction

Thursday’s event was the first presidential debate where one participant was a convicted felon.

A New York state jury in May found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels for an affair she testified they had that Trump didn’t want to harm his 2016 election prospects.

Trump has denied the affair and it hasn’t affected his support within the GOP, though his sentencing July 11 could affect his campaign strategy.

Trump rejected his criminal conviction during the debate and reiterated his stance that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with an adult film star.

“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” Trump said, marking the first time such words, or anything near them, have been uttered during a presidential debate.

“I did nothing wrong, we have a system that was rigged and disgusting,” Trump said. “I did nothing wrong.”

Trump also responded to the question by referring to Hunter Biden.

“When he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon,” Trump said.

Jan. 6 disagreement

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling within days in another trial involving Trump, this time on whether presidents enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office.

The justices’ decision will determine whether a federal trial against Trump for election interference stemming from his actions on Jan. 6, 2021 can proceed.

During the debate, Trump said that “on January 6 we were respected all over the world,” but that changed after Biden took office.

Trump seemed to imply that the people who stormed the Capitol building were “innocent” and “patriotic,” saying that “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” for those people being in prison.

Biden said that Trump encouraged the “folks” who attacked the U.S. Capitol building and U.S. Capitol Police officers.

“If they’re convicted, he says he wants to commute their sentences,” Biden said, criticizing Trump’s behavior that day. “These people should be in jail. They should be the ones held accountable.”

Biden rejected the idea that the people who attacked the police and disrupted the electoral certification were patriots.

Divide on abortion rights

Reproductive rights — including access to abortion — sharply divided Biden and Trump, who sparred over which political party’s stance is better.

Trump said that he agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month to leave access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, in place. And he said he wouldn’t seek to limit access if elected president in November.

“I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said, adding that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion was a good thing.

“We brought it back to the states and the country is now coming together on this issue,” Trump said. “It’s been a great thing.”

Trump said he supports exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman.

Biden rejected Trump’s classification that Democrats are “radical” on abortion policy and said he supports reinstating the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade.

“It’s been a terrible thing,” Biden said of leaving decisions about abortion access up to state lawmakers, comparing it to leaving civil rights decisions up to the states.

Trump said during an interview with Time magazine released in April that his campaign was on the brink of releasing a policy regarding mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. The campaign has yet to release that policy.

Trump suggested that he would be okay with states limiting or barring access to contraception during a May interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station. But he quickly walked back those comments in a social media post.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank, has suggested that another Trump administration could block the mailing of mifepristone by enforcing the Comstock Act.

The group included the proposal along with dozens of others in Project 2025, its 920-page blueprint for a second Trump administration.

The 1873 anti-obscenity law hasn’t been enforced in decades and is referred to as a “zombie law” by reproductive rights organizations, but it is still technically a law.

A future Republican attorney general seeking to enforce the law to block the mailing of mifepristone would likely see the law challenged in court, likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, which are approved for up to 10 weeks gestation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The two-drug regimen accounts for about 63% of all abortions within the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

First of two debates

The two presidential debates this year are a departure from past years, with both candidates ditching the proposed schedule from the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Biden and Trump later agreed to two debates, the one held Thursday by CNN and another one on Sept. 10 that will be hosted by ABC News.

CNN opted to hold its debate at its studios in Atlanta, Georgia, without an audience. Thursday night’s debate was also earlier than any other presidential debates, which have traditionally begun in September or October.

The television news network created frustration ahead of the debate with the White House Correspondents Association when it decided to keep the pool, the group of journalists that travel everywhere with the president, out of the room.

Kelly O’Donnell, president of the WHCA, released a statement Thursday afternoon that the organization was “deeply concerned that CNN has rejected our repeated requests to include the White House travel pool inside the studio.”

“The pool is there for the ‘what ifs?’ in a world where the unexpected does happen,” wrote O’Donnell, who is also the senior White House correspondent for NBC News. “A pool reporter is present to provide context and insight by direct observation and not through the lens of the television production.”

CNN’s rules also said that neither Biden nor Trump was allowed to bring props or pre-written notes into the debate area.

Each stood behind “a uniform podium” and was not allowed to interact with campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.

Biden was scheduled to travel with first lady Jill Biden to Raleigh, North Carolina, immediately after the debate wrapped. They’re set to participate in campaign events on Friday morning before traveling to New York later in the day.

The Bidens are then expected to travel to Red Bank, New Jersey, on Saturday for more campaigning before heading back to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

Trump will attend a campaign rally Friday afternoon in Chesapeake, Virginia. In a release announcing the event, Trump criticized Biden on inflation, crime and drug addiction, and immigration.

Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012 (Kirsten Strough/USDA)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced Tuesday that four states will launch voluntary pilot programs in the days ahead to test bulk milk tanks on dairy farms for bird flu — a move that’s aimed at making it easier for farmers to ship herds across state lines and for public health officials to track spread of the virus.

Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico and Texas will be in the first round of voluntary participation, with other states likely to follow, officials said on a call with reporters.

“This list of participating states is just the beginning,” said Eric Deeble, the acting senior advisor for H5N1 response at USDA.

“We are in close conversation with about a dozen other states who are very interested in participating as well,” Deeble said. “But it was important for us to get these four states going so that other states could watch how the program works and gain additional confidence.”

The launch of the pilot program, he said, is “an important step forward” for efforts to reduce the spread of bird flu, also known as H5N1, as well as for expanding understanding of the virus.

Farmers who voluntarily enter the program will be able to move their herds across state lines without additional testing after bulk milk tanks or similar representative samples test negative for H5N1 for three consecutive weeks.

“Producers must also comply with continued regular weekly monitoring and testing of their herd for H5N1, but that process can happen with very little effort on the part of the producer, using routine bulk milk samples,” Deeble said.

126 cases of bird flu confirmed

The announcement is part of the federal government’s ongoing response to the months-long outbreak within dairy cattle and years-long challenges faced by the country’s poultry industry.

The USDA has confirmed 126 cases of bird flu in dairy cattle herds in a dozen states as of June 21, including Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming.

Idaho has the most dairy herds affected, with a total of 27. That’s followed by Michigan with 25 herds and Texas with 21 herds. Colorado has reported 18 affected herds, while each of the other states has fewer than 10 herds testing positive for bird flu, according to the USDA data.

Three dairy farmworkers have contracted avian flu this year, though all cases were mild.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reinforced during the call Tuesday that the risk to the general public remains low, though there is an increased risk of contracting the virus for workers, both on dairy farms and poultry farms.

FDA to do more testing

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also announced Tuesday it’s broadening its testing for H5N1 to include about 155 additional samples of dairy products, including aged raw milk cheese, cream cheese, butter and ice cream.

The FDA has repeatedly tested pasteurized milk from store shelves in the months since the first dairy cattle herd tested positive for H5N1 and has continuously emphasized the nation’s milk supply remains safe.

“This retail sampling effort is intended to address remaining geographic and product gaps from the initial sampling of the commercial milk supply that FDA conducted between April and May of this year,” said Don Prater, acting director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the FDA.

It will likely take several weeks before those results are completed and made public, he said.

That second round of expanded food safety testing will not include raw milk, since it is not approved for interstate commerce, he said.

But the FDA has sent a letter to its local, state and tribal partners, cautioning those that do allow the sale of raw milk to talk with consumers about the additional risks, given that H5N1 is spreading through dairy herds in several parts of the country.

Prater, speaking on the call Tuesday, noted the FDA continues to strongly advise against drinking raw milk.

“We also recommend that the industry does not manufacture or sell raw milk or raw milk products, including raw milk cheese made with milk from cows showing symptoms of illness, including those infected with the avian influenza viruses or exposed to those infected with avian influenza viruses.”

Former President Donald Trump shakes hands with Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, on June 13, 2024 in Washington, D.C., as Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, left, seen as a possible vice presidential pick, and other Republicans look on. Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee, was visiting Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans and participate in additional meetings (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Republican members of the U.S. Senate striving for a takeover of their chamber in the November elections have a wish list for what they’d like to see in Donald Trump’s running mate.

A “little calmer” than Trump. Confident. Conservative. Military experience. Good relationships with senators. Ready to take over as chief executive if needed, they told States Newsroom in interviews.

Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has held off on revealing his pick. But he’s dropped tantalizing compliments about a few of the short-list candidates, producing non-stop headlines about the veepstakes in advance of the Republican National Convention next month.

So far, Trump hasn’t indicated a clear favorite, leading to incessant speculation about what characteristics he’s looking for in his second-in-command this time around, the person who will head up the GOP ticket with him in what’s likely to be a close election.

In 2016, Trump selected Indiana’s Mike Pence, in part to sway evangelical Christians who were skeptical about Trump’s moral character.

Trump is seeking a second term in office as a convicted felon found guilty on 34 counts in New York for falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to an adult film star ahead of the 2016 election. He’s also facing federal charges for seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election and has cast aside Pence after his former vice president refused to take part in the scheme.

That, however, hasn’t diminished the number of GOP lawmakers and former presidential hopefuls jostling to join his ticket.

Trump’s list of vice presidential candidates reportedly includes North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, Arkansas U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, Florida U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, former South Carolina Gov. and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, New York U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik and Ohio U.S. Sen. JD Vance.

Republican senators, including some thought to be in the running to be tapped as the veep candidate, met with Trump on June 13 to map campaign strategy and portray unity.

Trump told NBC News on Saturday his pick “most likely” will be at Thursday night’s debate with President Joe Biden in Atlanta.

Confidence and a coalition

Several Republican senators interviewed by States Newsroom offered suggestions for what traits might be most helpful for Trump in a vice president during a potential second term.

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she’s hoping to see a vice presidential pick who can bring confidence and a wider GOP coalition to the table.

“I think you want somebody who has broad knowledge, not just national, but international, (you want) decisiveness, and somebody who’s got leadership that you could actually see taking the reins of the presidency, somebody who has conservative principles on the Republican side and is a proven leader,” Capito said.

“I would imagine for President Trump, it’s going to be somebody that brings a broader constituency to him,” Capito said, adding “and is probably a little calmer than he is.”

‘Good relationships across the spectrum’

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said Trump would “benefit from somebody who, in the right setting, is providing a lot of good upward feedback, supporting the president’s agenda.”

The former and possibly future president would also gain from a pick who is “well studied on the issues,” and if it’s a senator, “a person with good relationships across the spectrum would help,” Tillis said.

“We’re probably going to have a tight margin, so if you think about maybe somebody who has past relationships with people in the House, good relationships with the Republican conference. I mean, we’re gonna have some tough votes,” Tillis said.

For example, Congress faces a massive tax code fight next year as several provisions in the 2017 Republican tax law are set to expire. Tillis recalled the internal GOP debate in 2017 “wasn’t a cakewalk.”

“We had to work to get Republican support,” Tillis said. “So having somebody that naturally has that chemistry, you know, whether or not you’ve worked on legislation, or you just have a good relationship going in. If I were in President Trump’s position, that’d be a key factor.”

Congress will also need to address the debt limit next year, a debate that carries significant economic consequences, both domestically and around the globe.

A stint in the military

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst — a top member of the Armed Services Committee and a retired lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard — said she “would love to see somebody that does have foreign relations or military policy experience.”

“I think that would be key, to have someone that’s young and enthusiastic and would be able to fill the role of our next president as well,” Ernst said.

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran said that Trump might want to pick someone whom voters feel confident can follow him as the leader of the Republican Party.

“I’m not sure that vice presidential nominees have a lot of impact, influence on how people vote,” Moran said. “But I would say that this may be a year in which that matters — (given the) age of candidates. And so who might follow is probably of interest to people. And I would say that the best qualification is somebody who’d be a great president.”

Indiana Sen. Mike Braun, who is likely to become his home state’s next governor, said Trump needs someone who thinks like him politically, so the two don’t differ on policy issues, as well as someone ready to become president if required.

“I think someone’s going to have to be on the same wavelength politically, for sure,” Braun said. “I think I’ve heard him say that he wants somebody ready to step into the role if necessary. I think the loyalty factor is something he’s always stressed.”

Alabama Sen. Katie Britt said that no matter who Trump picks off his short list, Republicans will win back the Oval Office in November.

“Every senator on the list is outstanding,” Britt said. “And I’ll be excited about the good things that we’re going to be able to do with him back in office and us in control of the Senate.”

When asked his opinion of Trump’s VP short list, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said, “I haven’t seen anybody on the list that I would object to.”

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy said he wouldn’t comment on specific contenders, but added “all the names I’ve heard mentioned seem to be good people.”

“But what counts is what President Trump thinks, and I don’t have the slightest idea who he’s gonna pick,” Kennedy said.

A sitting senator

Republican senators who spoke to States Newsroom appeared mostly unfazed by the possibility that a vice presidential pick could be from among their ranks — even if that lowers what could be a very narrow majority in the Senate come January.

Capito said she thinks a Republican majority will likely remain safe even if Trump chooses one of her colleagues as his running mate.

“I think the ones he’s talking about are from pretty red states, but you know, you’re always concerned about that,” Capito said. “But I think it would be great to have a colleague who was in the Senate with me be our vice president.”

Braun said that Trump might want to consider the polling of several key races for the Senate before picking his nominee.

“I think that could be a consideration,” Braun said. “You take that risk off the table.”

When asked whether a VP pick from the Senate could weaken or upset a GOP majority, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said, “I’m sure Trump will take that into consideration.”

Tillis said he is not concerned about Trump’s VP pick threatening a Republican Senate majority, and he speculated that Trump may even pull from the upper chamber when choosing his Cabinet, should he be elected.

“I think the replacement protocol doesn’t make it a significant issue,” Tillis said.

Grassley echoed Tillis. “Are we talking about Ohio, Florida, South Carolina? That’s it. I don’t think you’d worry about that,” he said.

Forty-five states require the governor to appoint someone to fill a vacant U.S. Senate seat, and 37 of those states fill the vacancy with the chosen appointment until the next statewide election, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The remaining states — Kentucky, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin — require vacant Senate seats to be filled by a special election.

All of Trump’s picks from the Senate are from states with Republican governors.

(Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Exactly two years after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, the battles rage among both advocates and lawmakers over the future of reproductive rights at the state and federal levels.

Anti-abortion groups that have achieved considerable success in deep-red parts of the country are working to sway voters away from approving ballot questions in more than a dozen states this November that could bolster protections for abortion. Several will be decided in states that will have an outsized role in determining control of Congress and the White House.

Abortion opponents are also preparing a game plan to implement if former President Donald Trump regains the Oval Office, a prospect that could lead to sweeping executive actions on abortion access as well as at least one more conservative Supreme Court justice.

Reproductive rights organizations are honing in on the numerous ballot questions as a crucial way to remove decisions from the hands of lawmakers, especially in purple or conservative-leaning states.

Abortion rights supporters are also trying to shore up support for Democrats in key races for the U.S. House and Senate as well as hoping to keep President Joe Biden in office for another four years.

$100 million to be spent by abortion rights advocates

Both sides plan to spend millions to win over voters.

The Center for Reproductive Rights, National Women’s Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations announced Monday they’re putting at least $100 million toward building “a long-term federal strategy to codify the right to abortion, including lobbying efforts, grassroots organizing, public education, and comprehensive communication strategies to mobilize support and enact change.”

“Anti-abortion lawmakers have already banned or severely restricted abortion in 21 states with devastating consequences, and they won’t stop until they can force a nationwide ban on abortion and push care out of reach entirely, even in states that have protected abortion access,” they wrote.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and PAC Women Speak Out announced they would dedicate $92 million to make contact with at least 10 million voters in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.

SBA President Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in a statement released Monday that there “is still much work ahead to ensure that every mother and child is supported and protected.”

“Meanwhile we are just one election cycle away from having every gain for life ripped away,” Dannenfelser wrote. “Joe Biden and the Democrats are hell-bent on banning protections for unborn children, spreading fear and lies, and forcing all-trimester abortion any time for any reason — even when babies can feel pain — as national law.”

Democrats have tried repeatedly to enact protections for abortion access, contraception and in vitro fertilization in Congress — both when they had unified control of government following the fall of Roe in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and during divided government.

None of Democrats’ bills have garnered the support needed to move past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

In addition to calling on Congress to restore the protections that existed under Roe, the Biden administration is attempting to defend abortion and other reproductive rights through executive actions as well as in front of the Supreme Court.

Abortion pill, emergency care

Earlier this year, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued two cases on abortion access.

The first case, brought by four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors, addressed access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions.

The justices unanimously ruled earlier this month that the groups didn’t have standing to bring the case in the first place, though they didn’t address any other aspects of the case.

The second case, yet undecided, has to do with when doctors can provide abortions as emergency medical care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or EMTALA.

Assistant to the President and Director of the Gender Policy Council Jennifer Klein said on a call with reporters Monday that there’s not much the Biden administration will be able to do if the justices side with Idaho in the case.

“If the court rejects our current interpretation, our options on emergency medical care are likely to be limited,” Klein said.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra in July 2022, shortly after the Dobbs ruling came out, released a letter saying that EMTALA protected health care providers who use abortion as stabilizing care.

The letter stated that “if a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department, including certain labor and delivery departments, is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment.”

“And when a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life and health of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted,” Becerra wrote.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently established a new portal that is supposed to make it easier for people to file complaints under EMTALA if they’re denied an emergency abortion.

Comstock Act repeal

Klein also said on the call the White House will likely support a bill introduced last week in Congress to repeal sections of the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-obscenity law, that could be used to bar the mailing of medication abortion during a future GOP administration.

“We support all actions by Democrats in Congress to protect reproductive freedom, including this one,” Klein said, after noting the interagency process for determining whether the Biden administration will support the bill was still ongoing.

The legislation, however, is unlikely to pass in a Congress with a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic majority in the Senate. And divided government appears likely to continue during the next four years, regardless of which presidential candidate wins in November.

Ballot questions in states

Outside of court cases and executive actions, ballot referendums are shaping up to be the more fruitful battleground for those supportive of abortion access, though anti-abortion groups are hoping to make some headway this fall.

Advocates in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania and South Dakota have either secured questions for the November ballot or are in the process of doing so, according to the health news publication KFF.

Residents in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont and Ohio have all previously decided to bolster or add protection for abortion access in the two years since the Supreme Court ruling was released.

Polling from the Pew Research Center conducted earlier this year shows that 63% of Americans support abortion access being legal in all or most cases, while 36% say it should be illegal in most or all cases.

The polling shows that Democrats and Republicans hold views in both directions, with 41% of Republicans and 85% of Democrats saying it should be legal in most or all cases, while 57% of Republicans and 14% of Democrats say it should be illegal in most or all cases.

The issue, as well as Biden and Trump’s records on abortion, are likely to be a central part of the first presidential debate on Thursday, just three days after the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs ruling.

(Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Scientists debated the origins of COVID-19 on Tuesday, trading barbs over whether the bulk of evidence available points to a natural spillover event from a wild animal or a virus designed in a lab and then let loose through an inadvertent leak.

The hearing in front of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee was part of ongoing efforts in Congress to apply the lessons learned during the pandemic to prevent or blunt the next outbreak.

Gregory Koblentz, associate professor and director of the Biodefense Graduate Program at George Mason University in Virginia, said during the two-hour hearing that debate continues in the scientific community about the origins.

“The possibility that SARS-CoV-2 was deliberately developed as a biological weapon has been unanimously rejected by all U.S. intelligence agencies,” Koblentz testified. “While the intelligence community is divided on the origin of the pandemic, most of the agencies have determined that the virus was not genetically engineered.”

Residents in Wuhan, China, were first diagnosed with “an atypical pneumonia-like illness” in December 2019, according to a COVID-19 timeline from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Initial cases all appeared linked to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market at the time, though there has since been much speculation about the types of research taking place at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Koblentz said he believes the available evidence points to a spillover event from an animal, though he added a “research-related accident can’t be ruled out at this time.”

The lack of transparency and data from the Chinese government has significantly hindered scientists’ efforts to unify around the origin of COVID-19, he said.

Scientists battle over lab vs. spillover

Richard Ebright, board of governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology and laboratory director at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University in New Jersey, testified he believes a “large preponderance of evidence indicates SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, entered humans through a research incident.”

Ebright also leveled criticism at fellow panelist Robert Garry, who, along with a handful of co-authors, published an opinion article in the journal nature medicine in March 2020, titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2.”

In the commentary, Garry and the other scientists wrote, “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

Ebright said during Tuesday’s hearing that the opinion article represented “scientific misconduct up to and including fraud,” a characterization that Garry rejected during the hearing.

“The authors were stating their opinion, but that opinion was not well-founded,” Ebright said. “In March of 2020, there was no basis to state that as a conclusion, as opposed to simply being a hypothesis.”

Garry, professor and associate dean of the School of Medicine at Tulane University in Louisiana, argued on behalf of the spillover event during the hearing, testifying that the virus likely didn’t move directly from a bat to humans, but went to an unidentified intermediary animal.

“The bat coronaviruses are viruses that are spread by the gastrointestinal route,” Garry said. “For a virus like this to become a respiratory virus — it’s just going to require too many mutations, too many changes for a bat virus to spill directly over to a human being. That could only really happen in nature with replication through an intermediate animal.”

Garry also defended gain-of-function research during the hearing, arguing that it has had some beneficial impact, though he noted that it does need “appropriate safeguards and restrictions.”

Lawmakers and pundits have used several, often evolving, definitions for gain-of-function research in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Society for Microbiology defines it as techniques “used in research to alter the function of an organism in such a way that it is able to do more than it used to do.”

When research is “responsibly performed” on highly transmissible and pathogenic viruses, it can lead to advances in public health and national security, Garry testified.

“Without gain-of-function research, we’d have no Tamiflu. Without gain-of-function research, we wouldn’t have a vaccine to prevent cancer caused by infection by the human papilloma virus,” Garry said. “And without gain-of-function research, we won’t be able to identify how novel viruses infect us. And if we don’t know how they infect us, we cannot develop appropriate treatments and cures for the next potential pandemic creating virus.”

Oversight of funding, research 

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan raised several questions about whether there’s enough oversight of how the United States spends research dollars as well as what mechanisms are in place to monitor how private entities conduct certain types of research.

“While their research has the potential to cure diseases and boost our economy, unless they accept federal funding, there is very little federal oversight to ensure that private labs are engaged in safe and ethical research,” she said.

Koblentz from George Mason University said there is much less oversight of biosafety and biosecurity for private research facilities that don’t receive federal funding.

“In order to expand the scope of oversight to all privately funded research, (it) would require legislative action,” Koblentz said.

Congress, he said, should establish a national bio-risk management agency that would have authority over biosafety and biosecurity “regardless of the source of funding.”

“At the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter where the funding comes from in terms of making sure this research is being done safely, securely and responsibly,” Koblentz said.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, ranking member on the committee, said the panel will hold an upcoming hearing specifically on gain-of-function research, including what steps Congress should take to ensure it doesn’t put the public at risk.

The next pandemic

Committee Chairman Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said during the hearing that lawmakers “must learn from the challenges faced during this pandemic to ensure we can better protect Americans from future potential biological incidents.”

“Our government needs the flexibility to determine the origins of naturally occurring outbreaks, as well as potential outbreaks that could arise from mistakes or malicious intent,” Peters said.

Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, after listening to some of the debate, expressed exasperation that so much attention is going toward what caused the last pandemic and not on how to prepare for the next one.

“Given the fact that it could have been either, we know what action we ought to take to protect from either,” Romney said. “And so why there’s so much passion around that makes me think it’s more political than scientific, but maybe I’m wrong.”

The United States, he said, shouldn’t be funding gain-of-function research and should “insist” that anyone who receives federal funding follow the standards of the International Organization for Standardization.

U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a Democratic bill Thursday to bolster protections for in vitro fertilization. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats’ attempts to bolster reproductive rights failed again Thursday when Republicans blocked a bill guaranteeing access to in vitro fertilization from moving forward.

The 48-47 procedural vote came just one day after Republicans tried unsuccessfully to pass their own IVF access bill and one week after GOP senators prevented legislation from advancing that would have bolstered protections for access to contraception. Senate rules require 60 votes to proceed on most legislation.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, both Republicans, broke with their GOP colleagues to support the IVF measure moving toward a final vote. The two also voted for cloture on the contraception access bill last week.

During both debates, the vast majority of Senate Republicans said the bills went too far or were too broad, a characterization that Democrats vehemently rejected, calling the GOP stance on certain reproductive rights out of step with most Americans.

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said during floor debate the bill would ensure patients have a right to access IVF and that doctors have a right to provide that fertility treatment, as well as require more health insurance companies to cover IVF.

The package included additional provisions that would “help more veterans and service members, who have trouble conceiving, get the critical fertility services they need to start their families, including IVF,” Murray said.

“This is something I’ve long been pushing for, for years now, and it is long overdue,” Murray said. “All these men and women, who fought to protect our families, we owe it to them to make sure they have the support when they come home to grow theirs.”

Murray said advancing the bill should not be “controversial, especially if Republicans are serious about” supporting access to IVF.

“As we saw in Alabama, the threat to IVF is not hypothetical, it is not overblown and it is not fear mongering,” Murray said.

‘A show vote’

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy spoke out against the bill during floor debate, saying it was not a serious effort at legislating and that no state currently bans access to IVF.

“I have been sitting here listening to this and I can’t help but notice my Democratic fellow senators have chosen to disrespect and deceive the American people as they politicize a deeply personal issue for short-term political gain,” he said.

Cassidy, ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said that had Democrats been serious about moving this bill, they would have put it up for debate in committee before bringing it to the floor.

He also criticized the legislation for requiring private insurance companies to provide unlimited fertility treatments, but setting a cap on how many treatments a veteran could receive from a Veterans Affairs clinic.

Republicans, Cassidy said, “are so open to working with Democrats on a sincere, bipartisan effort. But this is a show vote.”

“Today’s vote is disingenuous — pushing a bill haphazardly drafted and destined to fail does a disservice to all who may pursue IVF treatments,” Cassidy said.

GOP bill

The Senate vote came one day after Alabama Sen. Katie Britt and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, both Republicans, attempted to pass their IVF bill through a fast-track process called unanimous consent.

Their legislation would have blocked Medicaid funding from going to any state that bans IVF, though Democrats argued the measure wouldn’t actually have guarded against states classifying frozen embryos as children.

Britt said during debate on her bill Wednesday that she strongly supported nationwide access to IVF.

“Across America, about 2% of babies born are born because of IVF — that is about 200 babies per day,” Britt said. “So think about the magnitude of that number and the faces and the stories and the dreams it represents. In recent decades, millions of people have been born with the help of IVF.”

Murray blocked the Britt-Cruz bill from passing the Senate on Wednesday after Cruz asked unanimous consent to approve the measure. There was no recorded vote.

Protecting access

Senate Democrats’ IVF access bill was introduced by Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Murray and New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker earlier this month.

The 64-page bill would have provided a right for people to access IVF and for doctors to provide that health care without the state or federal government “enacting harmful or unwarranted limitations or requirements.”

The measure included provisions that would have bolstered access to IVF for members of the military and veterans as well as spouses, partners, or gestational surrogates.

The legislation defines fertility treatment as “preserving human oocytes, sperm, or embryos for later reproductive use; artificial insemination; genetic testing of embryos; use of medications for fertility; and gamete donation.”

The bill defines assisted reproductive technology as “including in vitro fertilization and other treatments or procedures in which reproductive genetic material, such as oocytes, sperm, fertilized eggs, and embryos, are handled, when clinically appropriate.”

Duckworth tried to pass a similar bill through unanimous consent back in February. But Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith blocked approval through the fast-track unanimous consent process. There was no recorded vote at the time.

Personal experience

Duckworth has talked openly about her struggles to start a family and use of IVF throughout her time as a senator, including this year after the Alabama state Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos constituted children under state law.

During floor debate Thursday, she spoke again about her own experiences with IVF, which she said is the reason she gets to put her 6-year-old’s drawings up on her Senate office wall and get tackled by her 9-year-old on Mother’s Day.

“I didn’t know it at the time back then, but infertility would become one of the most heartbreaking struggles of my life,” Duckworth said of her 23 years in the military that included a helicopter crash in which she lost her legs. “My miscarriage, more painful than any wound I ever earned on the battlefield.”

Duckworth said Republican opposition to the bill shows a lack of “common decency and common sense.”

“Excuse me if I find it a bit offensive when a bunch of politicians, who’ve never spent a day in med school, hint that those of us who’ve needed the help of IVF to become moms should be sitting behind bars rather than lulling our babies to sleep in rocking chairs.”

Lauren Miller, who was denied access to an abortion in Texas, listens during a Wednesday hearing of a U.S. Senate Judiciary subcommittee held to discuss abortion bans and interstate travel to access them after the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned the right to an abortion. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — When Lauren Miller flew from her home state of Texas to Colorado two years ago she felt a moment of relief when the plane took off — not because she had been delayed for hours or because she needed a vacation, but because she was about to meet with doctors who would be able to treat her complicated pregnancy with twins.

Miller, whose family has been in the Lone Star State for eight generations, testified Wednesday before a U.S. Senate panel about the struggles she faced after learning in 2022 one of the twins’ brains wasn’t developing correctly and was about half fluid.

“One of our twin sons was going to die. It was just a matter of how soon,” Miller testified. “And every day that he continued to grow, he put his twin and myself at greater and greater risk.”

The fear was complicated by Texas’ strict restrictions on abortion, which forced Miller to seek out treatment options without her doctors’ assistance.

Miller testified that, thankfully, she had a longtime friend she could trust who was an OB-GYN, who understood the landscape of abortion laws and knew doctors who could help address her diagnosis.

“She fortunately knew an OB-GYN in Colorado, in a safe state,” Miller testified. “And I’ll never forget getting on the phone with him and his first words were, ‘My feet are on the ground in Colorado, and I can answer anything you ask.’”

Miller said the best option for her and her family was to have a single fetal reduction, but that was technically an abortion and she couldn’t get it in Texas.

While discussing how to travel, she and her husband debated leaving their cell phones at home and only using cash out of fear of being tracked or facing prosecution for traveling for the procedure. But they ultimately took a flight instead of driving due to how sick she was at the time.

“We didn’t tell anybody what had happened,” Miller said Wednesday. “We didn’t tell anybody what we had done because we were so scared.”

Bill on interstate travel

The hearing on interstate travel was held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights.

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the panel’s chairman, said Congress should pass legislation from Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto that would reaffirm that people have a right to travel between states for reproductive health care.

Cortez Masto testified before the committee on Wednesday that her home state has seen a drastic increase in patients traveling for abortion care during the last two years and that the bill would protect those people and their doctors.

“Our legislation reaffirms that women have a fundamental right to interstate travel and makes it crystal clear states cannot prosecute women or anyone who helps them for going to another state to get the critical reproductive care they need,” Cortez Masto said. “The Freedom to Travel for Healthcare Act would also protect healthcare providers in pro-choice states like Nevada, who help these women traveling from out of state.”

The right to travel is already fundamental throughout the United States, but several GOP states have begun looking for ways to block their residents from traveling for abortions.

Right to travel

Jocelyn Frye, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families in Washington, D.C., testified during the hearing that attempting to bar travel is “highly problematic, inconsistent with long-standing constitutional protections and Supreme Court precedent, and would bring even more disruption to our healthcare system.”

Frye told senators that the right to travel between the states “is one of the bedrock” foundations of the United States that was included in the Articles of Confederation, which were approved before the Constitution, though the right is also found in that document.

“The efforts to really impede the right to travel, really go to the heart of our Constitution and our democracy.” Frye said. “And, you know, even in a world where people disagree on a lot of things, our ability to go from state to state of our own accord is a fundamental principle.”

Frye also referenced Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the case that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, where he affirmed that people seeking abortions have a right to travel between states.

Kavanaugh wrote: “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.”

Packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed at a family planning clinic on April 13, 2023 in Rockville, Maryland. (Photo illustration by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a much-anticipated decision Thursday that mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, can remain available under current prescribing guidelines.

The high court unanimously rejected attempts by anti-abortion groups to roll back access to what was in place more than eight years ago, writing that they lacked standing to bring the case.

Those limits would have made it more difficult for patients to get a prescription for mifepristone, which the Food and Drug Administration has approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and is used in about 63% of U.S. abortions.

Erin Morrow Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued the case in front of the court on behalf of the legal organization, doesn’t believe this is the end of efforts to challenge access to mifepristone. She is the wife of U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, who is seeking re-election this year.

She said on a call shortly after the ruling was released the three states that intervened in a lower court — Idaho, Kansas and Missouri — could still advance their arguments against mifepristone and potentially hold standing, the legal right to bring a case.

“I would expect the litigation to continue with those three states,” Hawley said.

Kavanaugh writes opinion

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in the united ruling from the Supreme Court, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing a concurring opinion.

“Plaintiffs are pro-life, oppose elective abortion, and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to mifepristone being prescribed and used by others,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors who originally brought the lawsuit against mifepristone have protections in place to guard against being forced to participate in abortions against their moral objections, he noted.

“Not only as a matter of law but also as a matter of fact, the federal conscience laws have protected pro-life doctors ever since FDA approved mifepristone in 2000,” Kavanaugh wrote. “The plaintiffs have not identified any instances where a doctor was required, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor’s conscience.”

“Nor is there any evidence in the record here of hospitals overriding or failing to accommodate doctors’ conscience objections,” he added.

Alliance Defending Freedom has not “identified any instances where a doctor was required, notwithstanding conscience objections, to perform an abortion or to provide other abortion-related treatment that violated the doctor’s conscience since mifepristone’s 2000 approval,” the opinion said.

Kavanaugh might have also included hints on how the court will rule later this session on a separate abortion access case that addresses the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act, known as EMTALA.

“EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Thomas agrees but questions who can sue

Thomas wrote a concurring opinion in the case, saying that he agreed with the court’s unanimous decision, which he did join, but brought up concerns with how a certain type of standing is used by the Court.

“Applying these precedents, the Court explains that the doctors cannot establish third-party standing to sue for violations of their patients’ rights without showing an injury of their own,” Thomas wrote.

“But, there is a far simpler reason to reject this theory: Our third-party standing doctrine is mistaken,” Thomas added. “As I have previously explained, a plaintiff cannot establish an Article III case or controversy by asserting another person’s rights.”

Reaction pours in

Politicians, anti-abortion groups and reproductive rights organizations all reacted to the ruling within hours of its release, often pointing to November’s elections as a potential next step.

President Joe Biden released a written statement saying the “decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues.”

“It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom,” Biden added. “It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.”

Former President Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, was in meetings most of Thursday with U.S. House Republicans and then separately with Republican U.S. Senators.

Neither Trump nor his campaign released a statement by early Thursday afternoon addressing the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, ranking member on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, wrote in a statement that the justice didn’t actually address the merits of the case.

“The Court did not weigh in on the merits of the case, but the fact remains this is a high risk drug that ends the life of an unborn child,” Cassidy wrote. “I urge FDA to follow the law and reinstate important safeguards.”

President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Stella Dantas related a statement saying the ruling “provides us with long-awaited relief.”

“We now know that patients and clinicians across the country will continue to have access to mifepristone for medication abortion and miscarriage management,” Dantas wrote. “Decades of clinical research have proven mifepristone to be safe and effective, and its strong track record of millions of patient uses confirms that data.”

Hawley from Alliance Defending Freedom wrote in a written statement the organization was “disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs.”

“While we’re disappointed with the court’s decision, we will continue to advocate for women and work to restore commonsense safeguards for abortion drugs—like an initial office visit to screen for ectopic pregnancies,” Hawley wrote. “And we are grateful that three states stand ready to hold the FDA accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls across this country.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote in a statement she had “both relief and anger about this decision.”

“Thank goodness the Supreme Court unanimously rejected this unwarranted attempt to curtail access to medication abortion, but the fact remains that this meritless case should never have gotten this far,” Northup wrote.

“The FDA’s rulings on medication abortion have been based on irrefutable science,” Northup wrote. “Unfortunately, the attacks on abortion pills will not stop here — the anti-abortion movement sees how critical abortion pills are in this post-Roe world, and they are hell bent on cutting off access.”

Missouri reaction

The ruling resulted in an immediate political reaction in Missouri as Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Lucas Kunce sent out a fundraising appeal highlighting Erin Hawley’s role in pushing the case to the high court.

“The Supreme Court just unanimously rejected the Hawley family’s effort to ban mifepristone, the most commonly used abortion pill, in all 50 states for now, ruling the plaintiffs did not have standing,” the fundraising appeal began, adding that “Josh Hawley and his corrupt family business are doing everything they can to dismantle reproductive freedom piece by piece.”

Kunce’s appeal was quickly followed by one from Wesley Bell, the Democratic St. Louis County prosecuting attorney who is challenging incumbent U.S. Rep. Cori Bush of St. Louis in the primary.

Abortion rights supporters said they were relieved by the ruling.

Scrutiny of personal health care decisions won’t end with the court’s ruling, warned Richard Muniz, interim president and CEO of health services at Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri. The organization provides medication abortions at its health center in Fairview Heights, Illinois, and through telehealth appointments.

“Anti-abortion actors will be back to try again as part of their long-term plan of banning abortion across the country,” he said in a statement Thursday.

Leaders with Abortion Action Missouri voiced similar concerns.

“Let’s be clear, the ruling today is a win– but only for now. Anti-abortion politicians and lobbyists have historically used the courts to adapt their attacks, only to come back for more,” the organization’s leaders wrote in press release Thursday. “This is not over, we still have work to do– fear and confusion about legality of and access to care serve as monumental barriers themselves.“

But Attorney General Andrew Bailey, in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, vowed he would continue pursuing the state litigation because the case was decided on who could sue, not what they argued.

“My case is still alive at the district court,” Bailey wrote. “We are moving forward undeterred with our litigation to protect both women and their unborn children.”

Scientific evidence argued

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in March, during which Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued the FDA’s guidelines for prescribing mifepristone were based on reputable scientific evidence and years of real-world use.

“Only an exceptionally small number of women suffer the kinds of serious complications that could trigger any need for emergency treatment,” Prelogar said. “It’s speculative that any of those women would seek care from the two specific doctors who asserted conscience injuries. And even if that happened, federal conscience protections would guard against the injury the doctors face.”

Hawley of ADF told the court that conscience protections in federal law didn’t do enough to protect anti-abortion doctors from having to possibly treat patients experiencing complications from medication abortion.

“These are emergency situations,” Hawley said. “Respondent doctors don’t necessarily know until they scrub into that operating room whether this may or may not be abortion drug harm — it could be a miscarriage, it could be an ectopic pregnancy, or it could be an elective abortion.”

The case reached the Supreme Court within two years of ADF originally filing the lawsuit in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where ADF wrote the FDA “exceeded its regulatory authority” when it originally approved mifepristone in 2000.

ADF filed the case on behalf of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians and Christian Medical & Dental Associations, as well as four doctors from California, Indiana, Michigan and Texas.

Kacsmaryk ruling started journey to high court

Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk essentially agreed with the anti-abortion groups, in a ruling in April 2023, where he wrote he did “not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly.”

“But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay at the request of the Justice Department, which put the district court’s ruling on hold until the appeal process could work itself out.

The Justice Department also appealed the district court’s ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where a three-judge panel heard the case in May 2023.

The panel — composed of Jennifer Walker Elrod, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, as well as James C. Ho and Cory T. Wilson, who were both appointed by former President Donald Trump — issued its ruling in August 2023.

The appeals court disagreed with the district court’s ruling that mifepristone’s original approval should be overturned, though it said that the FDA erred in making changes to prescribing guidelines in 2016 and 2021.

“It failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing several important safeguards at the same time. It failed to consider whether those ‘major’ and ‘interrelated’ changes might alter the risk profile, such that the agency should continue to mandate reporting of non-fatal adverse events,” the appeals judges wrote. “And it failed to gather evidence that affirmatively showed that mifepristone could be used safely without being prescribed and dispensed in person.”

That ruling didn’t take effect under the Supreme Court’s earlier stay.

The Department of Justice wrote to the high court weeks later in September, urging the justices to take up an appeal of the 5th Circuit’s decision.

“The loss of access to mifepristone would be damaging for women and healthcare providers around the Nation,” the DOJ wrote in the 42-page document. “For many patients, mifepristone is the best method to lawfully terminate their early pregnancies. They may choose mifepristone over surgical abortion because of medical necessity, a desire for privacy, or past trauma.”

Briefs filed with court

Dozens of abortion rights organizations and lawmakers filed so-called amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs to the Supreme Court calling on the justices to keep access to mifepristone in line with the FDA guidelines.

A group of more than 16 medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, wrote that “restricting access to mifepristone will not only jeopardize health, but worsen racial and economic inequities and deprive women of the choices that are at the very core of individual autonomy and wellbeing.”

Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers opposed to mifepristone wrote numerous briefs as well.

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming sent in a 28-page brief.

They wrote that the availability of mifepristone undermined states’ rights, since some of their states had sought to restrict abortion below the 10 weeks approved for mifepristone use or had sought to bar access to medication abortion.

“The FDA’s actions undermine these laws, undercut States’ efforts to enforce them, and thus erode the federalism the Constitution deems vital,” the attorneys general wrote. “Given these harms to federalism, this Court should view the FDA’s actions with skepticism.”

During oral arguments in March, several Supreme Court justices brought up conscience protections that insulate health care workers from having to assist with or perform procedures they have a religious objection to, like abortion.

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was “worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought.”

“The obvious, common-sense remedy would be to provide them with an exemption that they don’t have to participate in this procedure,” Jackson said.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch said the case seemed “like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action.”

Anna Spoerre and Rudi Keller of The Independent’s staff contributed to this report.

Washington Democratic U.S. Sen. Patty Murray speaks Wednesday during a press conference on in vitro fertilization outside the U.S. Capitol. Also pictured are supporters of Senate Democrats’ IVF access bill as well as New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker and Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt’s efforts to pass legislation that would block Medicaid funding from going to states that ban in vitro fertilization were unsuccessful Wednesday when Democrats blocked the bill from advancing.

Britt, who introduced the legislation earlier this year alongside Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, said during brief debate the bill would assuage concerns about couples losing access to IVF, though Democrats said the measure fell short of providing real protections.

Debate took place shortly after the Southern Baptist Convention, the United States’ largest Protestant religious organization and one with significant influence in conservative politics, voted to condemn IVF.

It also came one day before the entire U.S. Senate is set to vote on a bill from Democrats that would provide nationwide protections for IVF. That measure also lacks the bipartisan backing needed to advance to final passage.

“For the millions of Americans who face infertility every year, IVF provides the hope of a pathway to parenthood,” Britt said on the floor. “We all have loved ones — whether they’re family members or friends — who have become parents or grandparents through IVF.”

Britt said that ensuring access to IVF is “fundamentally pro-family” and that the legislation should provide couples with “certainty and peace of mind that IVF will remain legal and available in every single state.”

‘No protection’: Missouri advocates sound alarm after IVF safeguards stymied in legislature

Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said the Britt-Cruz bill would still allow states to “enact burdensome and unnecessary” regulations on IVF that could lead to the kind of “legal uncertainty and risk” that forced IVF clinics in Alabama to close temporarily earlier this year.

“Even though it is an inherent part of the IVF process that families will make more embryos than they need,” Murray said. “This bill does absolutely nothing — not a single thing — to ensure families who use IVF can have their clinics dispose of unused embryos without facing legal threats for a standard medical procedure.”

Murray said GOP senators were completely ignoring the issue of what happens to frozen embryos and using the bill as a “PR tool.”

“The stone-cold reality is that you cannot protect IVF and champion fetal personhood,” Murray said.

State access

The Britt-Cruz legislation would prevent a state from receiving Medicaid funding if it barred access to IVF, though the bill didn’t say anything about states that define life as beginning at fertilization.

The Alabama state Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that frozen embryos constituted children didn’t explicitly ban IVF, but all of the state’s clinics stopped operating until the legislature provided civil and criminal protections.

Cruz sought to pass the bill using the unanimous consent process, where any one senator can ask for approval and any one senator can block that legislation from moving forward. Murray blocked Cruz’s request.

Unanimous consent requests don’t include a recorded vote.

The legislation had three additional co-sponsors — Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and Roger Marshall of Kansas.

Democratic bill

The Senate is set to take a procedural vote as soon as Thursday on legislation from Democrats that would bolster protections for IVF, though that bill isn’t expected to get the GOP support needed to move forward.

That bill is more detailed and broader than the Britt-Cruz bill, which has received criticism from Democrats as being insufficient.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said Wednesday during a press conference that access to IVF shouldn’t be turned into a political issue and called on GOP senators to back the bill.

“We can’t make this seem like a left-right issue. It’s absolutely not,” Booker said. “This is an issue that’s overwhelmingly supported in America by Republican families, Democratic families and independent families. And so trying to make this into some kind of typical political debate in Washington is just wrong.”

Booker said protecting access to IVF is, instead, “about protecting fundamental rights, expanding opportunity, taking care of our military families.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth, the bill’s lead co-sponsor who has been open about using IVF to have her two daughters, threw cool water on working with Republicans on a bipartisan bill when asked about the possibility during the press conference.

“Well, they’re welcome to join ours and make it bipartisan. We’ve got 47 co-sponsors thus far and it’s a very simple piece of legislation,” Duckworth said. “I can’t see why they wouldn’t join it.

“In contrast, 90% of Republicans have not signed on to Senator Britt’s bill,” Duckworth added.

Southern Baptists’ resolution

Senate debate on in vitro fertilization is taking place the same week the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Indiana for its annual convention.

During that two-day gathering more than 10,000 Baptists, called messengers, voted on official policies of the SBC, which included objecting to how IVF is practiced now.

The SBC wrote in its resolution that IVF “most often engages in the destruction of embryonic human life and increasingly engages in dehumanizing methods for determining suitability for life and genetic sorting, based on notions of genetic fitness and parental preferences.”

The resolution on IVF “resolved” that members of the SBC should “only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation” as well as several other affirmations within the document.

The resolution was titled, “On the Ethical Realities of Reproductive Technologies and the Dignity of the Human Embryo.”

Kristen Ferguson, from 11th Street Baptist Church in Upland, California, who announced the resolution before the vote, opposed an amendment that would have made several changes to the text.

Ferguson said during a brief debate the committee that wrote the resolutions for the SBC to vote on wanted to make sure it addressed IVF “with the utmost sensitivity.”

She added that members of the resolutions committee did “not take this topic lightly and we want to make sure that we’re speaking carefully about it.”

Former President Donald Trump in a pre-recorded message told The Danbury Institute, a group opposed to abortion, that he hopes to protect “innocent life” if elected in November. In this photo, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel And Convention Center on Feb. 24 in National Harbor, Maryland (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

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.

“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.

“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.

U.S. WWII veteran PFC John M. Wardell, of New Jersey, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken watch President Joe Biden deliver a speech on June 7, 2024, at Pointe du Hoc, near Le Bavent, France, where U.S. Army Rangers scaled cliffs over 100 feet high on D-Day to destroy a heavily fortified German position. Biden is in France to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy and to emphasize the continued role of the United States in helping to protect democratic values in Europe (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden, speaking from the site of the D-Day invasion in Normandy, France, said Friday that those who support democracy must remember what World War II soldiers sacrificed and live up to those ideals.

Biden’s remarks came during commemoration of the 80th anniversary of D-Day and sought to tie the threats to democracy in the 1940s to those that exist today in the United States and Europe.

“American democracy asks the hardest of things — to believe that we’re part of something bigger than ourselves,” Biden said. “So democracy begins with each of us.”

Biden spoke from the Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc, where former President Ronald Reagan in 1984 delivered a memorable speech on the invasion’s 40th anniversary.

The monument, constructed by the French, sits eight miles west of the Normandy American Cemetery and was built to honor the members of the American Second Ranger Battalion.

Biden walked in to give the speech alongside Scott Desjardins, the superintendent of the Normandy American Cemetery, who later told reporters that he spoke with the president about the battle.

“I explained to him that when the Rangers were still living, they would tell us climbing up the cliff was not the difficult part,” Desjardins told White House pool reporters. “Holding onto this terrain for two and a half days, being outnumbered, is really the amazing thing about Pointe du Hoc.”

First Sergeant Gavin Stith, U.S. Army, 2nd Ranger Battalion, and his spouse, Kourtney Stith, attended the speech alongside about 150 other people. U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken both attended as well.

​Pfc John M. Wardell, 99, from New Jersey, who landed in France on June 18, 1944, was seated in the audience as well and spoke with Blinken, according to pool reports.

Standing up to dictators

Biden said during the 12-minute speech the soldiers who stormed the beach in 1944 had decided that it was necessary to stand up to a dictator who threatened democracy in Europe and that people today must live up to that benchmark.

“Does anyone doubt that they would want America to stand up against (Russian leader Vladimir) Putin’s aggression here in Europe today?” Biden asked.

“They fought to vanquish a hateful ideology in the ‘30s and ‘40s,” Biden added. “Does anyone doubt they wouldn’t move heaven and earth to vanquish the hateful ideologies of today? These rangers put mission and country above themselves. Does anyone believe they would exact any less from every American today?”

Biden met earlier in the day with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and announced a $225 million aid package for the country to assist in its war against Russia’s invasion.

Biden told Zelenskyy during the meeting that his country’s efforts to win the war are “remarkable” and apologized for how long it took Congress to approve the latest round of military and humanitarian assistance.

“I apologize for the weeks of not knowing what’s going to pass in terms of funding because we had trouble getting the bill that we had to pass that had the money in it,” Biden said during the Zelenskyy meeting. “Some of our very conservative members were holding it up. But we got it done finally.”

‘Be part of something bigger than ourselves’

Biden said during his speech at Pointe du Hoc the Allied soldiers who scaled those cliffs on D-Day, all of whom are deceased, would ask every American today to “stay true to what America stands for.”

“They’re not asking us to give or risk our lives, but they are asking us to care for others in our country more than ourselves,” Biden said. “They’re not asking us to do their job. They’re asking us to do our job; to protect freedom in our time, to defend democracy, to stand up to aggression abroad and at home, to be part of something bigger than ourselves.”

If Americans wish to honor the sacrifices of our country’s WWII soldiers, they must “ensure that our democracy endures and the soul of our nation endures,” he said.

Biden did not mention the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump, by name, but Democrats have repeatedly stressed the danger they believe Trump poses to democracy.

Biden spoke Thursday at the Normandy American Cemetery near Omaha Beach about the bravery of the soldiers who stormed the beaches on D-Day and the allied forces who worked together to defeat Nazi Germany and end the Holocaust.

(Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — An attempt to reinforce Americans’ access to contraception failed Wednesday when U.S. Senate Republicans blocked a bill from advancing toward final passage.

The 51-39 procedural vote required at least 60 senators to move forward, but fell short after GOP lawmakers said the measure was too broad as well as unnecessary.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Maine Sen. Susan Collins, both Republicans, broke with their party and voted to advance the legislation. Missouri’s GOP senators, Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, both voted to block the bill from moving forward.

Democrats argued during debate on the 12-page bill that it would provide a safety net should a future Supreme Court overturn two cases that ensure married and unmarried Americans have the right to make decisions about when and how to use contraception.

GOP senators contended the vote was mere politics and that if Democrats were serious about safeguarding access to contraception for future generations, they’d work with Republicans on a bipartisan bill.

Nevada Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen said the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion in the Dobbs decision two years ago showed women how quickly things can change.

“It demonstrated that a fundamental right, the right of women to make decisions over their own bodies, could be taken away in the blink of an eye,” Rosen said.

Women, she said, can’t rely solely on the Supreme Court to uphold the cases that have guaranteed Americans access to contraception for more than 50 years.

“Contraception has been safely used by millions of women for decades,” Rosen said. “It’s allowed women to take control over their own bodies — to decide when they want to start a family, how many kids they have, who they want to start a family with.”

“For these very same reasons, the right to contraception has been a target of anti-choice extremists for years,” Rosen added.

Senate Minority Whip John Thune, the South Dakota Republican seeking to become the chamber’s next GOP leader, said the bill was meant to “provide a talking point for Democratic candidates.”

“These votes have nothing to do with legislating and everything to do with boosting Democrats’ electoral chances, he hopes, in this fall’s election,” Thune said, referring to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The legislation was a non-starter with many Republicans, Thune said, because it didn’t carve out the conscience protections that exist under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The federal law, enacted in 1993 after being sponsored by Schumer, established “a heightened standard of review for government actions that substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.”

Sales of contraceptives

Democrats’ bill would have protected “an individual’s ability to access contraceptives” and “a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception.”

The legislation would have barred state and federal governments from prohibiting the sale of any contraceptives or blocking “any individual from aiding another individual in voluntarily obtaining or using any contraceptives or contraceptive methods.”

The bill defined contraception as “an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness-based methods and sterilization procedures.”

House Democrats introduced an identical bill in that chamber on Tuesday, though it’s unlikely to get a vote while Republicans remain in control.

Following the vote, Schumer moved to schedule a procedural vote next week on legislation that would guarantee access to in vitro fertilization.

Schumer said during a press conference afterward that vote would give Americans an opportunity to “see where Republicans stand on the so very important issue” of reproductive rights.

Supreme Court opinion

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stirred up concerns about access to contraception two years ago when he wrote a concurring opinion in the Dobbs case.

Thomas wrote that the justices should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

None of the other nine justices joined Thomas in writing that opinion, likely signaling they didn’t agree with some or all of it.

The 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut case was the first time the court recognized that married couples’ constitutional privacy rights extend to decisions about contraception. That ruling struck down a Connecticut state law that barred access to contraceptives.

The Supreme Court, in 1972, extended the right to make private decisions about contraception to unmarried people in the Eisenstadt v. Baird ruling.

Following the release of Thomas’ concurring opinion, Democrats and reproductive rights organizations immediately began pressing for federal laws that would reinforce current contraception access. Congress has not passed any so far.

Mini Timmaraju, president and chief executive officer of Reproductive Freedom for All, said during a press conference with Senate Democrats on Wednesday before the vote that women should talk with their mothers and grandmothers about when they were first able to obtain birth control.

“When we talk about the generations of women in this country who didn’t have access to birth control, we’re just talking about my mother’s generation — 1965,” Timmaraju said. “It was not that long ago and that should really be a wake-up call.”

‘Birth control is popular’

Michelle Trupiano, executive director of the Missouri Family Health Council, said Wednesday afternoon that Hawley and Schmitt’s vote shows “how disconnected our senators are from what Missourians actually want.”

Recent polling by The Right Time, a family planning initiative through the Missouri Family Health Council Inc., showed Missourians across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support access to contraceptives, but some fear their lawmakers could pass laws limiting that availability. 

About half the Republican respondents, 84% of the Democratic respondents and 61% of the independent respondents said they are very or somewhat concerned the legislature will push laws restricting birth control. 

“Birth control is popular– everyone knows someone who has used or currently relies on birth control,” Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said in a statement Wednesday.

Jessica Estes is among the Missourians who attributes part of her success to birth control. 

In the 13 years between the births of her eldest two children, Estes graduated from high school and went on to earn a master’s degree from Washington University in St. Louis. 

Estes, now a 35-year-old mother of three in University City, gave birth to her first child the day after she turned 17. She had her second child after finishing school. 

“Reaching my academic goals opened up a wealth of opportunities professionally, which allowed me to have a level of stability that I would not have had if I didn’t have access to birth control,” Estes said. “To be able to make the right choice about when and if I would have more children.” 

But in those 13 years she didn’t always have access to birth control. As an undergraduate, she was hired into her first full-time job with benefits. When she went to the pharmacy to pick up her birth control refill, she learned that her employer, a Catholic organization, did not cover contraceptives. 

“I was afraid that for the first time in quite a while, I wasn’t going to have control over my life or my future,” she said. “I didn’t know what my next step was going to be.”  

Estes eventually was accepted into the Contraceptives Choice Project at Washington University, where she got her first intrauterine device, which was placed for five years, for free. Because she didn’t have a car at the time, this also helped guarantee her access, since she no longer had to drive to the pharmacy every few months with her toddler in tow.

“Women and birthing people in Missouri find birth control to be valuable, life-changing for the better, and vital to their life and success,” said Estes, who is now a social worker and also serves as vice chair of Abortion Action Missouri Foundation Board.

Ernst alternative proposal 

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said during debate on the bill that Democrats’ legislation went too far and pressed for the Senate to take up a bill she introduced earlier this week.

The measure has since gained nine co-sponsors including Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Steve Daines of Montana, Todd Young of Indiana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, James E. Risch of Idaho and John Cornyn of Texas.

Iowa Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson plans to introduce the companion bill in the House, according to an announcement from Ernst’s office.

“With my bill, we’re ensuring women 18 and over can walk into any pharmacy, whether in Red Oak, Iowa, or Washington, D.C., and purchase a safe and effective birth control option,” Ernst said. “This Republican bill creates a priority review designation for over-the-counter birth control options to encourage the FDA to act quickly.”

Ernst said she was “encouraged” that one over-the-counter oral contraceptive has been approved and is available, but that should be “just a starting point.”

The four-page bill would encourage the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to approve additional over-the-counter oral contraceptives and “direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on federal funding of contraceptive methods.”

The legislation would require the secretary of the Health and Human Services Department to give priority review to a supplemental application for oral contraceptives “intended for routine use.” But it does not extend that to “any emergency contraceptive drug” or “any drug that is also approved for induced abortion.”

Access to over-the-counter oral birth control that receives FDA approval so that it no longer requires a prescription would be available for people over 18.

The USDA has performed more than 17,000 tests for avian influenza on cattle, with a total of 67 herds affected throughout nine states (Getty Images).

Dairy farmers throughout the country are on guard and the federal government is mobilizing after an outbreak among cattle herds of highly pathogenic avian influenza — once thought to be confined to poultry flocks.

What’s more, the virus, also known as H5N1 or bird flu, was diagnosed in a third dairy farmworker last week, marking the first U.S. case with respiratory symptoms, said to be mild. The other two cases, also both mild, were diagnosed as pink eye.

The notable leap from cows and chickens to humans is not yet ringing alarm bells for public health officials or veterinarians, who believe the risk to the public remains low. However, they are closely monitoring poultry and dairy farms for any changes, despite a reluctance among some dairy farmers to test their herds.

“Avian influenza is something that public health scientists are worried about,” said Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. “It’s probably the potential infection or outbreak that causes the greatest amount of anxiety just because, if this did get into a place where it was easily transmissible among humans, everybody fears that could be a really, really bad scenario.”

The ongoing response has brought together a veritable alphabet soup of government agencies and agricultural organizations, highlighting the complicated nature of fighting bird flu. The mobilization is intended to stem the significant economic toll that farmers could face and curb the virus’ spread.

At the federal level, the Agriculture Department is responsible for the farm animals, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for human health, the Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction over the eggs and milk sold in grocery stores, and the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response oversees its piece of the pie.

Then come the state agencies, interest groups, agribusiness and family farms.

As of last week, more than 40 people had been tested for H5N1 with more than 350 people enrolled in monitoring, about 220 of whom are in Michigan. Two of the human cases have been in Michigan while the other was diagnosed in Texas.

Michigan also has several dairy cattle herds diagnosed with H5N1.

The USDA has performed more than 17,000 PCR tests on cattle, with a total of 67 herds affected throughout nine states, including Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas.

This strain of bird flu has also cropped up in a wide variety of mammals, including domestic cats. That’s led experts to recommend that people limit their pets’ interactions with wild birds, which hold a reservoir of the virus, as well as all farm animals.

USDA begins expanded testing

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced last week that it’s launching a voluntary pilot program to expand testing for dairy farms to gain better insight into the virus and make it easier for farmers to ship dairy cows across state lines.

The department is also transferring $824 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for the ongoing response.

“It’s important to note that as these additional testing measures take place, USDA anticipates that we may see an increase in the number of herds that are testing positive,” said Eric Deeble, acting senior adviser for highly pathogenic avian influenza and deputy assistant secretary for congressional relations.

The pilot program will test milk samples from bulk tanks for H5N1. Farms that consistently test negative will “be able to ship their cows at the time they prefer and without testing individual animals, knowing that their entire herd is free of the disease,” Deeble said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, on a press call with reporters Monday, declined to say whether USDA has a full grasp of the extent of the virus’ spread in dairy cattle, but he said, “We have a pretty good understanding of the nature of this virus and essentially what’s causing its spread.”

“We’re trying to essentially corner this virus, so that over time it dissipates,” Vilsack said.

Dairy farmers can begin enrolling in the pilot program this week in participating states.

Dairy farms reluctant to test

Infected cows have tremendous amounts of the virus in their milk, so those that are lactating must test negative for the virus before they can be transported across state lines, the USDA has ordered.

In states such as Iowa, which has no detections of the virus in cattle, dairy farmers have been reluctant to test more than is required.

“There has not been a lot of testing to date,” said Rodger Main, director of the Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, which first discovered bird flu was infecting cattle. “What’s being tested is the dairy cattle that are moving interstate.”

Scientists are sequencing the genetic code of an avian flu that was found in a flock of 4.2 million egg-laying hens last week in northwest Iowa to determine if it is the same variant that has been infecting cattle, said Don McDowell, a spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. If so, it might indicate that there are infected cattle in Iowa.

A similar detection happened more than a month ago at a turkey flock in Minnesota, another state with no known dairy cattle infections.

However, no coordinated testing was done of dairy farms near the infected turkey flock to determine whether they had infected cattle and might have been the source of the transmission, said Michael Crusan, a spokesperson for the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.

“The Board of Animal Health didn’t collect any samples from dairy farms surrounding HPAI positive poultry premises,” Crusan said. “We do not have authority to test those dairy farms without suspected or confirmed illness reported to us.”

There is reluctance among some dairy farmers to voluntarily test their cattle for fear of what might happen if those tests reveal their herds are infected, said Dr. Barb Petersen, a Texas veterinarian who helped discover that bird flu was infecting cattle.

They might be afraid that they’ll be barred from selling their cattle for an unknown amount of time or that animal movements to and from their farms will be otherwise restricted.

Petersen suspects that nearly all the dairies in her area near Amarillo were infected but that many were not tested.

Infected cows typically recover in 10 to 14 days. Infected herds suffer a drop in milk production that can last about a month.

The virus is much more severe for chicken and turkey flocks, where it often causes fatal illness. Entire flocks are destroyed to prevent the spread of the virus.

More testing and better biosecurity measures are important to help prevent the virus from spreading from infected cattle to the poultry flocks, said Phillip Jardon, the dairy extension veterinarian for Iowa State University.

He is aware of several dairy farms that installed noise-making systems to keep away wild birds, which are believed to be an initial source of the infections. It’s unclear how many other state-recommended precautions are being adopted.

“The risk to dairies is not as large as it is to poultry, but dairies should keep in mind that they have neighbors who are poultry producers where it can be devastating, and they don’t want to have a local source of the virus,” he said.

Vilsack said USDA needs to better educate dairy farmers about the risks to their neighboring farmers to get more voluntary help in tracking and containing the virus.

It spread from Texas to faraway states through the transportation of infected cattle, but it has likely spread locally via farmworkers, veterinarians and equipment moving farm to farm, Vilsack said.

PPE for farmworkers

Plescia from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials said during an interview with States Newsroom that while the risk to the public remains low, health officials are paying close attention to agricultural workers.

Ensuring farmworkers have access to personal protective equipment is essential, though it could be challenging to get all workers to use it during the hotter summer months, Plescia said.

The most recent case in a farmworker in Michigan, announced May 30, is more concerning to experts. “We’re much, much more worried about respiratory infections because it’s respiratory infections, where in the past with earlier versions of H5N1, we’ve seen that those infections can be very, very severe and the mortality can be very high,” Plescia said.

Public health officials need to work with farm owners and farmworkers to make sure that even people with mild symptoms get tested for avian flu to ensure that it isn’t circulating more widely than the documented cases, he said.

They need to ensure that undocumented workers or those on agricultural work visas who are concerned about interaction with the government are comfortable enough to get tested.

“When the state government starts showing up to do testing as far as they’re concerned, people are fearful of that and so they’ll stop coming to work,” Plescia said.

Plescia also cautioned that people shouldn’t drink raw milk for the foreseeable future.

Dr. Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview with States Newsroom the agency is focusing its attention on farmworker safety through personal protective equipment, testing and additional resources.

The CDC is also working to build trust so that workers who might be in the U.S. on visas or who are undocumented feel comfortable getting tested for H5N1 or reporting an illness to public health officials.

“When H5 became a phenomenon in poultry farms, it took some time for poultry farm owners and poultry farmworkers to gain trust with the public health system,” Shah said. “The same thing, the same dynamic, is at play here.”

Shah, speaking during a separate press briefing on H5N1, said that even with the new respiratory case, there have been no signs, either genetically or epidemiologically, that this strain of avian influenza is adapting in a way that would lead to greater transmission.

“We are on the lookout for those changes, but the mere fact that this individual displayed some respiratory symptoms — again, we should be alert — but, in and of itself, is not a cause to change or suggest that we’re at an inflection point,” Shah said. “It is a cause and a reason to remain alert.”

Amira Roess, professor of global health and epidemiology at George Mason University, said in a written statement that public health officials must “provide incentives for individuals to report illness and to get tested, or at least we have to remove barriers.”

“Because we don’t have meaningful, high quality and accessible health care for the majority of our population, particularly those in rural areas where the virus has first spilled over, it will be challenging to get ahead of this,” Roess wrote in response to questions from States Newsroom about H5N1. “Many farmworkers are hourly workers and cannot afford to take time off for what they perceive as mild illness.”

Keep pets away from wild birds

Meghan Davis, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said in an interview with States Newsroom this particular strain of avian flu has been spreading between mammals, including domestic pets, and will likely continue to do so.

“The fact that this particular clade has been able to infect so many different mammalian species, and has now caused at least two documented cases in people — although, thankfully, with relatively mild symptoms — is a concern,” she said, before the third case was announced.

Davis cautioned that because there have been cases among cats living on dairy farms that drank raw cow’s milk, people shouldn’t give raw milk to their pets.

Pet owners should also be cautious about letting their animals interact with wild birds, which are known to spread the virus.

Milk purchased in grocery stores is safe to drink since it’s been pasteurized and has been repeatedly tested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during the past few months to ensure there’s no active virus in the country’s food supply.

Other mammals diagnosed with avian flu this year include a mountain lion in Montana, red foxes in Michigan and Missouri, and a raccoon in Colorado. Domestic cats have been diagnosed in Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas, according to data from the CDC.

Davis said the surveillance system for H5N1 should be broadened to include “more systematic testing, which would require us to have somewhat better access to workers, to animals on farms, etc.” as well as antibody testing to determine if more people have contracted avian flu and recovered.

The additional information could help if the virus were to shift in the coming months or years.

“We don’t know exactly what this virus is going to do,” Davis said, noting the mild nature of the virus detected so far could mean that more people have contracted it and simply didn’t realize it.

Davis explained that public health officials and researchers need to closely monitor viruses like H5N1 since they can change in a way similar to how the flu changes, leading to the need for a different flu shot each year.

Roess, the epidemiology professor from George Mason University, noted that an uptick in human cases of avian influenza, could “be an indication of other types of transmission than what is currently believed.”

“Right now, the cases reported are a result of direct contact with infected food animals,” Roess said. “It is critical to ramp up surveillance of people working closely with possibly infected animals, other animals in the vicinity and other people who are not directly in contact with possibly infected animals in the community.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic at the Rayburn House Office Building on June 03, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Dr. Anthony Fauci defended his decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic on Monday, testifying before Congress about his work on the virus as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during two presidencies.

House Republicans who called the hearing grilled Fauci during the contentious three-hour session about the origins of COVID-19, which killed more than 1 million Americans, as well as Fauci’s role in the response. It was the first time Fauci, 83, who also served as chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, had appeared before Congress since leaving government employment in 2022.

Fauci repeatedly said he didn’t conduct official business using personal email in response to allegations he did so to avoid oversight. He also said he has kept an open mind about the origins of the virus, and explained to members of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic why guidance shifted so much during the first several months of the pandemic.

“When you’re dealing with a new outbreak, things change,” Fauci said. “The scientific process collects the information that will allow you, at that time, to make a determination or recommendation or a guideline.”

“As things evolve and change and you get more information, it is important that you use the scientific process to gain that information and perhaps change the way you think of things, change your guidelines and change your recommendation,” Fauci added.

Republicans on the panel repeatedly asked Fauci about how the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China received grant funding from the U.S. government, as well as whether it, or another lab, could have created COVID-19. That theory is counter to another that the virus emerged from a “spillover event” at an outdoor food market.

Fauci testified that it was impossible the viruses being studied at the Wuhan Institute under an NIH subgrant could have led to COVID-19, but didn’t rule out it coming from elsewhere.

“I cannot account, nor can anyone account, for other things that might be going on in China, which is the reason why I have always said and will say now, I keep an open mind as to what the origin is,” Fauci said. “But the one thing I know for sure, is that the viruses that were funded by the NIH, phylogenetically could not be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2.”

Fauci added that the $120,000 grant that was sent to another organization before being sent to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, was a small piece of the budget.

“If they were going to do something on the side, they have plenty of other money to do it. They wouldn’t necessarily have to use a $120,000 NIH grant to do it,” Fauci said.

The NIH subaward to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, he testified, “funded research on the surveillance of and the possibility of emerging infections.”

“I would not characterize it as dangerous gain-of-function research,” Fauci said. “I’ve already testified to that effect, a couple of times.”

Politicians have used multiple, often shifting, definitions for gain-of-function research during the last few years. The American Society for Microbiology writes in a two-page explainer that it is “used in research to alter the function of an organism in such a way that it is able to do more than it used to do.”

Saving lives

Actions taken during the first several months of the pandemic were essential to saving lives, Fauci testified. Those steps included encouraging people to socially distance, to wear masks and to obtain the vaccine once it was approved.

Fauci said that had public health officials just let the virus work its way through the country without any precautions or safety measures, “there very likely would have been another million people (who) would have died.”

Information about the COVID-19 vaccine, he said, was communicated as it came in, including particulars about whether it would stop the spread of the virus entirely or whether it predominantly worked by limiting severe illness and hospitalizations.

The issue is particularly “complicated,” Fauci said, because at the very beginning of the vaccine rollout, data showed the shot did “prevent infection and subsequently, obviously, transmission.”

“However, it’s important to point out, something that we did not know early on that became evident as the months went by, is that the durability of protection against infection, and hence transmission was relatively limited — whereas the duration of protection against severe disease, hospitalization and deaths was more prolonged,” Fauci testified.

“We did not know that in the beginning,” he added. “In the beginning it was felt that, in fact, it did prevent infection and thus transmission. But that was proven, as time went by, to not be a durable effect.”

Republican members on the subcommittee, as well as those sitting in from other committees, repeatedly asked Fauci about allegations that he avoided using his government email address to circumvent requests for those communications under the Freedom of Information Act, FOIA.

Fauci vehemently denied the accusations, saying he “never conducted official business using” his personal email.

Death threats

Michigan Democratic Rep. Debbie Dingell asked Fauci during the hearing about threats he and his family have faced during the last few years, especially as misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19 have spread.

“There have been credible death threats, leading to the arrests of two individuals. And credible death threats means someone who clearly was on their way to kill me,” Fauci testified.

Fauci and his wife and three daughters have received harassing emails, text messages and letters. Fauci said people targeting his family for his public health work makes him feel “terrible.”

“It’s required my having protective services, essentially all the time,” Fauci testified. “It is very troublesome to me.”

One of the most critical Republicans on the panel, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, caused the hearing to grind to a halt during her questioning, refusing to address Fauci as a medical doctor and instead calling him “Mr. Fauci.”

Greene also alleged that Fauci should be in jail, though she didn’t present any evidence of actual crimes, nor has any police department or law enforcement agency charged him with a crime.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, of which the subcommittee is a part, said repeated GOP-led investigations into Fauci’s conduct show “he is an honorable public servant, who has devoted his entire career to the public health in the public interest. And he is not a comic book super villain.”

Raskin later apologized to Fauci for several GOP lawmakers treating him like a “convicted felon,” before seemingly referencing that former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is a convicted felon.

“Actually, you probably wish they were treating you like a convicted felon. They treat convicted felons with love and admiration,” Raskin said. “Some of them blindly worship convicted felons.”

President Joe Biden delivers remarks Friday on former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in his hush money trial before speaking on the Middle East at the White House on in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden announced a ceasefire proposal from Israel on Friday, saying the three-phase plan presented to Hamas represents the best chance to end the war.

Biden, speaking from the White House, urged people around the world who have been calling for an end to the war in the Middle East to pressure the Iran-backed terrorist organization to take the deal. If successful, it would begin with a six-week ceasefire and end with the reconstruction of Gaza.

“For months, people all over the world have called for a ceasefire,” Biden said. “Now it’s time to raise your voices and demand that Hamas come to the table, agree to this deal and end this war that they began.”

Biden also called on Israel’s leaders to be firm in their commitment to the ceasefire proposal, urging them to reject those within the country and its government who believe the war should continue no matter what.

“I know there are those in Israel who will not agree with this plan and will call for the war to continue indefinitely. Some — some — are even in the government coalition and they’ve made it clear they want to occupy Gaza, they want to keep fighting for years and the hostages are not a priority to them,” Biden said. “Well, I’ve urged the leadership in Israel to stand behind this deal, despite whatever pressure comes.”

Rejecting this proposal, or not working genuinely to move through its three phases, would be detrimental to Israel’s safety, Biden said.

“That will not bring hostages home. That will not bring an enduring defeat of Hamas. That will not bring Israel lasting security,” Biden said.

Months of war, thousands of deaths

The war began on Oct. 7 when Hamas attacked Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostages. Ever since, Israel has been at war with the terrorist organization throughout Gaza.

The civilian death toll in the occupied territory has risen significantly during the eight-month war and has been exacerbated by a lack of clean water, food, shelter and medical care. The number of dead has risen to more than 35,000, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, who say the majority are women and children.

Biden has faced mounting pressure from within the United States to find an end to the war, with thousands of Democrats voting “uncommitted” in their state’s presidential primaries to voice their frustration with how he’s handled the conflict.

Protesters have also shown up at several of Biden’s official and campaign events to demand he do more to implement a permanent cease fire and increase the supply of humanitarian aid entering Gaza.

Six-week first phase

The first phase of the agreement would include a six-week ceasefire, during which time Israel’s military would withdraw from all populated areas of Gaza and civilians would be able to return to their homes, including in the north. Hamas would release women, elderly, the injured and American hostages. Israel would release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.

Remains of hostages who have died would be returned to their families during phase one, “bringing some degree of closure to that terrible grief,” Biden said.

Humanitarian assistance to Gaza would increase significantly, Biden said, with at least 600 trucks entering the territory every day.

“With a ceasefire, that aid could be safely and effectively distributed to all who need it,” Biden said. “Hundreds of thousands of temporary shelters, including housing units would be delivered by the international community. All that and more would begin immediately.”

Negotiations for a permanent ceasefire

The second phase of the agreement would begin after Israel and Hamas successfully completed negotiations during the first phase to reach a permanent ceasefire, Biden said.

“Now I’ll be straight with you: There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two,” Biden said. “Israel will want to make sure its interests are protected. But the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, a ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue.”

Egypt, Qatar and the United States all hope to keep those negotiations going, he said.

During the second phase there would be an exchange of all remaining living hostages, including male soldiers. Israel’s military would withdraw from Gaza.

“As long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, the temporary ceasefire will become — in the words of the Israeli proposal — a cessation of hostilities permanently,” Biden said.

Reconstructing Gaza

The third phase would include “a major reconstruction plan for Gaza” and any remains of deceased hostages not previously returned to their families would be sent back at that time.

Biden said his administration would work with allies “to rebuild homes, schools and hospitals in Gaza.”

“To help repair communities that were destroyed in the chaos of war,” he added.

Completing all three phases of the proposed ceasefire, Biden said, could lead to Israel and Saudi Arabia normalizing relations.

“Israel could be part of a regional security network to counter the threat posed by Iran,” Biden said. “All this progress would make Israel more secure, with Israeli families no longer living in the shadow of a terrorist attack. All this would create the conditions for a different future, a better future for the Palestinian people — one of self-determination, dignity, security and freedom.”

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley speaks during a press conference on reproductive rights for people with disabilities outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Three members of Congress introduced a resolution Thursday that’s intended to bring attention to the experiences and challenges people with disabilities face when it comes to reproductive rights.

Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley announced the resolution during a press conference with advocates just steps from the U.S. Capitol, saying that under a Supreme Court ruling still in effect, people with disabilities can be sterilized without their consent.

“Buck v. Bell is a decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the court ruled on May 2, 1927, affirming the constitutionality of Virginia’s law allowing state-enforced sterilization,” Pressley said.

Pressley said people outside of the disability rights community often aren’t aware of the ruling or the fact it has never been challenged.

“They’re in disbelief that this even happened and that this ruling authorizes involuntary sterilization of people with disabilities and has never been overturned,” Pressley said.

Unique barriers

The four-page resolution would designate one day in May as Disability Reproductive Equity Day.

The resolution says that “people with disabilities face unique barriers when accessing reproductive health care,” including harmful stereotypes, communication barriers and a lack of accessible health care facilities, among other obstacles.

It adds that Congress “pledges to advance the right of people with disabilities to reproductive and sexual health, autonomy, and freedom.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Washington Democratic Sen. Patty Murray introduced the companion resolution in that chamber.

Murray wrote in a statement announcing the introduction that “Americans with disabilities have long had to jump through extra hoops and faced real discrimination when it comes to accessing the health care they need, including abortion care.”

“Access to reproductive health care has been in crisis since the Dobbs decision, making it even harder for people with disabilities to access high-quality care from providers who understand their health care needs,” Murray wrote. “It’s important that we recognize the barriers millions of women face in accessing reproductive health care, and this resolution is an important marker for us all to recommit to the fight for reproductive justice for all.”

Co-sponsors in the House include New Jersey Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, Pennsylvania Rep. Madeleine Dean and Washington Rep. Adam Smith. All are Democrats.

Access to full slate of care

Rebecca Cokley, a disability advocate and former executive director of the National Council on Disability, told a story during the press conference about how after having her middle child, the anesthesiologist told the OB-GYN to “tie her tubes,” adding that “people like her don’t need to have any more babies.”

Cokley said her OB-GYN could have “advocated for that and it would have been perfectly legal.”

“When we talk about reproductive justice, it’s about the idea that all women, all people have the right to have children, the right to not have children.” Cokley said. “The right to nurture the children we have in a safe and healthy environment.”

Jess Davidson, communications director at the American Association of People with Disabilities, discussed how access to the full slate of reproductive health care, including abortion, is crucial for people with disabilities.

Members of the community, she said, “have an 11 times greater risk of mortality from pregnancy.”

“I know all too well the fear that comes with living with that kind of risk,” Davidson said. “I felt deep in my bones as a young woman that I was made for motherhood.”

After being diagnosed with an illness in her mid-20s that significantly increased her chances of miscarriage or maternal mortality, Davidson said she spoke with her doctor about whether or not she should ever get pregnant.

“I was devastated when I first learned this, but my doctor assured me that if I was willing to get an abortion if it were necessary to save my life and work closely with a high-risk obstetrician, that I could try and see how it went,” Davidson said. “After all, every person and every pregnancy is different.”

That was all before the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to an abortion that had stood for nearly 50 years under two prior rulings.

“Now when I think about attempting a high-risk pregnancy, I feel so fearful that it feels like I can’t breathe,” she said. “And I am someone who lives in Colorado and Washington, D.C., two places where my right to that life-saving care is still intact.”

Many people with disabilities who want to have children, Davidson said, now live in states that ban or significantly restrict abortion access, even if continuing a pregnancy threatens their life or health.

Forced sterilization in state laws

Ma’ayan Anafi, senior counsel for health equity and justice at the National Women’s Law Center, said that 31 states have laws in place that allow forced sterilization of people with disabilities.

“These laws give judges the power to disregard a disabled person’s wishes and make the decision for them, supposedly for their own good,” Anafi said.

“In doing so they echo many of the same harmful narratives that fueled forced sterilizations … that disabled people can’t or shouldn’t make decisions about their bodies and parenting,” Anafi added. “And that it’s justifiable to take those choices away to protect disabled people from themselves.”

An attendee looks at a series of banners for the National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Candlelight Vigil on the National Mall on April 24, 2024, in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime held the event to pay tribute to victims and survivors of crime and individuals who provide service and support (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

Groups that assist crime victims across the United States are bracing for significant financial pain after the amount available from a major federal victim services fund plunged $700 million this year.

Congress recently lowered spending to $1.2 billion from the fund, which provides grants to nonprofit and local programs across the country.

This latest round of cuts has sparked widespread concern among district attorney’s offices, rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, child advocacy centers and law enforcement agencies that offer victim support services. Many of these organizations and agencies now expect to have to close locations, lay off staff and cut back on services.

Meanwhile, the drop in dollars has many experts and advocates rethinking the current, uncertain system of helping crime victims. How much federal money is available every year is determined by a complex three-year average of court fees, fines and penalties that have accumulated — a number that has plummeted by billions during the past six years. The fund does not receive any taxpayer dollars.

Karrie Delaney, director of federal affairs for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, said the slowdown of court cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and the last administration not prosecuting as many corporate cases has affected the fund more than usual.

RAINN is the country’s largest anti-sexual-violence organization. It operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800-656-HOPE) alongside local organizations and runs the U.S. Defense Department’s Safe Helpline. It “also carries out programs to prevent sexual violence, help survivors, and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice,” according to its website.

“I think what’s important from RAINN’s perspective is the actual impact that those fluctuations have on the survivors that we support and organizations and service providers across the country,” Delaney said.

When the federal cap decreases, she said, organizations that support crime victims often turn to state and local governments to make up the gap. And a lot of the times there isn’t enough money to do that.

Victim services providers say that smaller groups or branches, particularly those in rural towns or counties, are at an especially high risk of closing because of the expected cutbacks. Many rely solely on federal dollars.

Shakyra Diaz, the chief of federal advocacy with the Alliance for Safety and Justice, which advocates for crime victims, said many groups are “seriously in a situation where they may have to close their doors, they may have to cut services, they may have to cut staff, they may have to tell crime victims, ‘I cannot help you right now. You have to wait six months.’”

In at least three states — California, Colorado and Maine — state legislators have proposed bills that would create new avenues for state-based funding for victim services. A couple of bills would inject general state dollars into victim services to offset the federal cuts, while one would create a new tax on firearms and ammunition, and yet another would increase criminal penalties on corporations. The money collected from taxes or fines would then go toward supporting victim services.

The federal crime victims fund gets its money from fines, forfeited bonds and financial penalties in certain federal cases.

The year-by-year uncertainty around how much money will come from federal crime cases, which directly affects how much will be available to states to distribute to victim services providers, makes it challenging for groups to budget over the long term.

“Services for victims and resources for victim services are already so tight. And so when you’re talking about taking a pot of money that’s already stretched at its best and making it smaller — it’s frankly terrifying,” said Renée Williams, the executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime.

The federal fund was established in 1984 under the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA. Congress tried to stabilize the fund in 2000 by setting an annual cap on withdrawals. The cap remained below $1 billion a year until 2015, but Congress raised it to $2.3 billion that year, and in 2018 it peaked at $4.4 billion.

But in fiscal year 2023, Congress lowered it to $1.9 billion, according to data from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Then, the cap plummeted, and by fiscal year 2023, Congress had set it at $1.9 billion, according to data from the U.S. Department of Justice.

This past March, Congress again lowered the cap, to $1.2 billion, a drop of more than 35%. The cuts will not take effect until October of this year, when the federal government’s next fiscal year begins.

Victim services groups say that the demand for help has continued to surge. Some anticipate the grant process to become even more competitive.

They’re asking state lawmakers for help.

State legislation

For Stand Up Placer, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking in Placer County, California, the anticipated federal cuts are expected to slash about $700,000, or 22%, of the group’s budget, according to Cheryl Marcell, the organization’s CEO.

Some of the group’s services, such as legal counseling, are likely to be scaled back. Instead of serving the current caseload of 500, the group may only be able to accommodate 200 clients, Marcell said.

In California, local district attorney’s offices are grappling with how to address this funding shortfall, according to Jonathan Raven, assistant CEO of the California District Attorneys Association and former Yolo County chief deputy district attorney.

Offices are considering options such as laying off staff, requesting local funding or scaling back services altogether, Raven told Stateline.

“The people that are victimized that are the most vulnerable are no longer going to get the services that they should expect and they do deserve,” Raven said. “It’s really going to be a significant impact across California and across the country.”

State legislators in California have proposed two bills aimed at mitigating the federal cuts.

One of the bills would require state supplemental funding whenever the federal VOCA award is reduced more than 10% than the amount awarded the prior year. The bill is in committee.

The other bill, which is still under consideration in the Assembly, would increase fines levied on corporations convicted of misdemeanor and felony offenses. These fines would be used to fund a new California Crime Victims Fund.

In Colorado, the legislature passed a bill proposing a more permanent state funding source for victim services through a 9% gun and ammunition excise tax. The tax revenue would be spent on crime victim support services, mental health services, school safety and gun violence prevention.

The bill is now headed to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis, who has until June 7 to sign or veto it, according to his press secretary. If he signs it, the measure will go before voters on the November ballot.

Meanwhile, in Maine, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed a budget bill in April that includes a one-time allotment of $6 million for victim services.

Effects on services for victims

There are about 12,200 victim services providers in the United States, with nearly a quarter of them located in the country’s most populous states — California, Florida, Texas and New York, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2017 census.

Ohio has more than 400 victim services providers, many of which receive funding from the federal crime victims fund. Last year, the state received $46.6 million.

But for fiscal year 2024, Ohio has been awarded just $26.7 million, a 42.8% decrease from 2023 and a 77% decrease from 2018.

With such a steep cut, some victim services providers in Ohio fear they will no longer be able to serve rural communities, particularly those in the Appalachian region. For the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, a statewide coalition that supports rape crisis centers, losing funding could reduce its support to the 12 counties that do not have local rape crisis centers or programs.

“It’s the places that already don’t have great access to services and that have never had access to services [that] will be the ones to have whatever access they have further reduced,” said Emily Gemar, the group’s director of public policy.

Court-appointed special advocate programs in Appalachian counties also are expected to bear the brunt of the funding cuts, according to Doug Stephens, the executive director of Ohio CASA, which oversees 47 local programs covering 60 counties that support children navigating the court system. Stephens anticipates as many as 10 local programs shutting down.

“They are working very hard to provide the same services as the big cities,” he said in an interview. “The only way they can stay open is with VOCA funding.”

In South Carolina, victim services providers and Republican Attorney General Alan Wilson are urging the state legislature to offset the looming federal cuts. Wilson has requested $15 million, which is just enough money to keep existing services.

The state Senate has proposed a $5 million allotment, while the House has put forward a $3 million proposal. Under either plan, current projects could face cuts ranging from about 15% to 30%, according to the attorney general’s office.

Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff Leon Lott, whose department receives VOCA funding and employs victim advocates who help people go through the criminal legal system, said the state should offer more support.

“When things like this happen, people just think about dollars. What we see is the real people, we see the feelings, we see the pain and emotions they’re going through,” said Lott, a Democrat. “This loss of funding, I’m afraid, will have a negative impact on the things that we try to do with victims and may end up victimizing them even more.

“If the feds are not going to provide the money, then the state needs to do it.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on Facebook and Twitter.

(Mark Wilson/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Senators from both political parties at a Wednesday hearing appeared to be on the same page about limiting presidential emergency powers, striking a bipartisan agreement that Congress should take steps this year to rework a decades-old law.

The National Emergencies Act, approved during the 94th Congress, provides the president with powers they wouldn’t otherwise have and was intended to give lawmakers oversight of those emergencies.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat, said there are “common sense reforms that would strengthen Congress’ role in exercising oversight of these emergency powers.”

Peters said he looks forward to collaborating with Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, ranking member on the committee, as the panel works “diligently to make that happen in the coming months.”

“Reforming the National Emergencies Act is not about thwarting the policy goals of either party,” Peters said. “It’s about strengthening our democracy and ensuring Congress maintains the responsibility to oversee executive power.”

‘Dangerous imbalance’

Paul said the current structure of the 1976 law, which was affected by a Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, creates a “dangerous imbalance of constitutional separations of powers.”

“Congress has been complicit and made itself a feckless branch of the federal government by granting the president so many emergency powers and refusing to regularly vote on termination of national emergencies as required by current law,” he said.

Paul said he hoped the hearing marked the beginning “of a serious and sustained effort to restore the Constitution, reclaim the authority of Congress and protect the liberties of the people by paring back the vast emergency powers delegated to the president.”

Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice, testified there are 43 emergency declarations under the National Emergencies Act in place today, out of 79 total declarations.

That is especially concerning, Goitein said, because “an emergency declaration unlocks powers contained in more than 130 statutory provisions, and some of these carry enormous potential for abuse.”

One emergency power allows the president to take over or shut down wire or radio services, a process last used during World War II when that applied to telephones and telegrams that weren’t in many American homes, she said.

“Today, it could arguably be used to exert control over U.S.-based internet traffic,” Goitein said. “Other laws allow the president to freeze Americans’ assets without any judicial process, to control domestic transportation and even to suspend the prohibition on government testing of chemical and biological agents on unwitting human subjects.”

It would be “irresponsible” of Congress to continue hoping for “presidential self-restraint” to ensure that an executive doesn’t take their emergency powers too far, she testified.

Trump border wall emergency 

Former President Donald Trump, Goitein said, “opened the door to abusing statutory emergency powers when he declared a national emergency to secure funding for the border wall after Congress had refused to provide that funding.”

“President (Joe) Biden nudged the door open a little bit more when he relied on emergency powers to forgive student loan debt,” she added. “Again, after Congress had considered legislation to forgive debt and had not passed that legislation.”

There are several proposals that would require Congress to approve a president’s emergency declaration within 30 days, otherwise it would terminate. And even if a president received congressional approval, they would have to go back to lawmakers a year later to renew the emergency, Goitein said.

Gene Healy, senior vice president for policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, testified that it is “remarkable that we haven’t seen far greater abuses” of presidential emergency powers under the National Emergencies Act.

Congress should “reset” how emergency powers work by “sunsetting presidential emergency declarations after a matter of weeks and requiring actual authorization from Congress to extend them further,” Healy testified.

Lawmakers should review what emergency powers were granted to presidents under the nearly 50-year-old law and take away any that wouldn’t be necessary during a true emergency or that “are especially susceptible to abuse,” he said.

Satya Thallam, senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation and a former senior staff member for the panel, said “the sweet spot for any reform is one that is on its face policy neutral and designed to service only the interests of Congress’ lawmaking role vis-à-vis the president, rather than any particular political agenda.”

The Foundation for American Innovation writes on its website that it was established in 2014 in Silicon Valley as Lincoln Labs. Its mission “is to develop technology, talent, and ideas that support a better, freer, and more abundant future.”

Disruption of peaceful transfer of power

In response to a question from Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff about how a president could disrupt a peaceful transition of power, Goitein reluctantly testified that she was concerned about the Insurrection Act, which exists outside of the National Emergencies Act.

“The Insurrection Act is a law that allows the president to deploy federal military troops to quell civil unrest or to execute the law in crisis,” she said. “It gives the president extremely broad and judicially unreviewable discretion to deploy troops in ways that could certainly be abused.”

Healy said it would be “prudent” for Congress to “tighten up” the authorities that a president holds under the Insurrection Act.

Paul said he was fully supportive of re-working the Insurrection Act to avoid potential abuses by presidents.

“The Insurrection Act is a thousand times more potent and has the potential for turning the place into, you know, military rule overnight,” Paul said, adding that he’s introduced a bill that would bar presidents from sending the military anywhere without the explicit approval of Congress.

“Our soldiers are great, but they’re not trained to obey the Fourth Amendment, our police are. And even that’s imperfect,” Paul said. “But our police know about the Fourth Amendment. They know they have to get warrants. Armies don’t get warrants.”

Paul said any changes to the Insurrection Act must be “more strict” than changes to the National Emergencies Act, “because you’re talking about putting troops in our cities.”

Paul also said the committee should look closely at the emergency power that could allow a president to essentially turn off the internet during a national emergency, referring to that as the internet kill switch.

“You could become dictator in a day, in a moment, in one executive order,” Paul said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced on Wednesday that the Senate will vote in June on legislation guaranteeing the right to access contraception (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators will go on record next month with whether they support legislation from Democrats that would guarantee access to contraception — a right currently upheld by two Supreme Court cases, but one that has been singled out by a conservative justice.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, announced Wednesday the chamber would vote on the bill in June, saying it would help to bolster women’s reproductive rights at a crucial time. Sixty votes will be needed for the bill to advance.

“Now, more than ever, contraception is a critical piece of protecting women’s reproductive freedoms,” Schumer said.

The move to hold a procedural vote on the legislation, which has 49 co-sponsors, came just one day after Donald Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee for president, said that his campaign would be releasing a policy on contraception in the next week.

Trump seemed to be open to state restrictions on contraception, though he later backtracked in social media comments.

“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 in Pittsburgh. “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 had been asked if he supports “any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception.”

Trump later said that “things really do have a lot to do with the states. And some states are going to have different policies than others.” That comment came after Trump was asked if he “may want to support some restrictions, like the morning-after pill or something?”

In Congress

The House approved a bill similar to the Senate legislation in July 2022 that was sponsored by North Carolina Democratic Rep. Kathy Manning. The chamber at the time was controlled by Democrats.

That measure defined contraception as “an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and sterilization procedures.”

Senate Democrats tried to pass their version of the so-called Right to Contraception Act the same month, but Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst blocked the unanimous consent request.

Unanimous consent is the fastest way to approve legislation in the Senate, but it allows any one lawmaker to block passage. There is no recorded vote during that process, but there will be next month when Schumer holds the procedural vote.

If the legislation gains 60 votes, it would move on to a simple majority vote.

Democrats were attempting to enact statutory protections for contraception two years ago following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling by the Supreme Court that ended the constitutional right to abortion. That right was established in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case and affirmed in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood ruling.

In a dissenting opinion in Dobbs, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the justices should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents” that relied on the same right to privacy legal thinking that justices had cited in Roe and Casey.

Thomas specifically mentioned the Griswold v. Connecticut, Obergefell v. Hodges and Lawrence v. Texas cases.

Griswold was the 1965 case where the Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut state law that had prevented married couples from using contraception.

The Supreme Court held that a “right to privacy can be inferred from several amendments in the Bill of Rights, and this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.”

Those rights were extended to unmarried people in the 1972 Eisenstadt v. Baird ruling.

Polling from the Kaiser Family Foundation, released in March, shows that 45% of adults said they believe access to contraception is “a secure right likely to remain in place.”

An additional 21% responded that they believe it is “a threatened right likely to be overturned.” A total of 34% of respondents said they were not sure.

The PACT Act added 23 illnesses to the list of toxic-exposure-related ailments presumed to be connected to military service (Andrew Burton/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is set to announce in New Hampshire on Tuesday that 1 million claims have been granted for benefits under the toxic exposure law that Congress approved less than two years ago, following the military’s use of open air burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The law, approved with broad bipartisan support following years of advocacy by veterans, their families and service organizations, has also led to more than 145,000 people enrolling in health care provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Denis McDonough told reporters on a call ahead of the announcement that the law has made “tangible, life-changing differences for” veterans and their survivors.

“That has meant more than $5.7 billion in earned benefits for veterans as well as access to no-cost VA health care across all 50 states and the territories,” McDonough said.

White House Domestic Policy Advisor Neera Tanden said during the call that the law, known as the PACT Act, “represents the most significant expansion of benefits and services for toxic-exposed veterans, including veterans exposed to burn pits and certain veterans exposed to radiation and Agent Orange.”

“This is truly personal for the president given his experiences as a military parent,” Tanden said. Biden’s son, Beau, died at 46 years old in 2015 from brain cancer.

The approval rate for benefits under the PACT Act is about 75%, according to a senior administration official.

Biden is set to make the announcement during a trip to Nashua, New Hampshire.

Burn pit exposure

Congress struggled for years before reaching a compromise on when and how to provide health care and benefits for veterans exposed to open air burn pits during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hazardous chemicals, medical waste, batteries and other toxic substances were disposed of in those burn pits, typically located on military bases. Service members had no choice but to live and work alongside the smoke, often breathing it in.

The law added 23 illnesses to the list of conditions that the VA presumes are connected to military service, eliminating the arduous and complicated process that many veterans had to undergo to try to get health care and benefits for those diagnoses.

Before the bill became law, veterans often had to prove to the VA that their illnesses were connected to their military service if they wanted to receive benefits or health care for those illnesses.

The U.S. Senate voted 84-14 in June 2022 to send the legislation to the House, where it was delayed for weeks over a dispute about incentivizing health care providers to move to rural or very rural areas.

The bill passed the House following a 342-88 vote in July, after that section was removed from the package. Senators voted 86-11 in August to send the bill to Biden’s desk.

The president signed the bill during a ceremony on Aug. 10.

“When they came home, many of the fittest and best warriors that we sent to war were not the same,” Biden said during the event. “Headaches, numbness, dizziness, cancer. My son Beau was one of them.”

The VA has an interactive dashboard that provides veterans with information about how to apply for health care and benefits under the PACT Act as well as how many claims have been submitted.

The VA has a calendar of in-person events that can be found here. Veterans or their family members can also call the VA at 800-698-2411 to inquire about PACT Act benefits.

Dr. Brian Jeffrey Swann, who is on the board of directors for Remote Area Medical and practices dentistry in Tennessee, told a U.S. Senate committee about low-income people who drive from far distances to attend clinics where they can get their dental problems treated (Screenshot from U.S. Senate webcast).

WASHINGTON — Dentists from throughout the country urged Congress to include dental coverage in Medicare during a hearing Thursday, saying that fewer than half of beneficiaries visit a dentist each year.

The panel of four dentists told the U.S. Senate Help, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that other changes are needed as well to reduce the gap in consistent dental care for all Americans, including removing the barrier between health care and dentistry as well as bolstering affordable treatment for underserved communities.

The dentists also told senators that better outreach and education are needed to ensure people understand how missing regular checkups can have negative repercussions on their physical health.

Dr. Lisa Simon, associate physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a member of the faculty at Harvard Medical School, testified that “fewer than half of Medicare beneficiaries see a dentist each year. When they do, they spend more than $1,000 out of pocket on their care.”

She also told senators during the hearing that the dental coverage offered by many Medicare Advantage plans is insufficient. Such plans offered by private companies roll together Part A and Part B coverage and often include drug coverage.

“Dental plans are often a draw for beneficiaries that choose Medicare Advantage,” Simon said. “But my research has found that beneficiaries with Medicare Advantage have rates of dental access that are just as low and out-of-pocket costs that are just as high as traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare Advantage is not the solution here.”

Dr. Myechia Minter-Jordan, president and CEO of CareQuest Institute for Oral Health in Boston, told the panel that traditional Medicare’s exclusion of dental benefits leaves about “half of Medicare enrollees, nearly 25 million older Americans and people with disabilities, without dental benefits.”

“There is currently no financial support for adults to purchase dental insurance through the Health Insurance Marketplace,” Minter-Jordan said. “And adult dental coverage is optional under state Medicaid programs, which means that coverage varies widely from extensive benefits to none at all.”

Dr. Brian Jeffrey Swann, who is on the board of directors for Remote Area Medical and practices dentistry in Tennessee, told the committee the nonprofit organization provides pop-up dental and vision clinics for underinsured and uninsured people.

“The people that come to RAM for assistance often drive across two or three state lines, sleeping in their cars, wrapped in blankets to stay warm. Many people come days before the clinic just to ensure that they get a ticket,” Swann said.

“Patients suffer from cavities and gum disease,” he added. “And this is concerning due to the interplay of gum disease and diabetes.”

Swann, who is also co-chair of Global Oral Health at the National Dental Association, said that organization has been calling for dental coverage to be included in Medicare for decades.

Sanders, Cassidy split on Medicare changes

The dentists’ recommendations revealed a chasm between the two top lawmakers on the panel.

“The lack of affordable dental care in America is a problem all over our country,” said HELP Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont. “But it is especially acute for lower income Americans, pregnant women, people with disabilities, veterans, those who live in rural communities, and Black, Latino and Native Americans.”

Sanders said access to and affordability of dental care within the United States has “become so absurd” that Americans have begun traveling to “countries like Mexico, Costa Rica, India, Thailand and Hungary, where it is much less expensive to get the dental care they need.”

That is still out of reach for many people, leading to nearly 1 out of 5 senior citizens having lost their teeth, he said.

“And many of them cannot afford dentures, which can cost many thousands of dollars,” Sanders said, adding that “70% of older Americans have some sort of periodontal disease, which can lead to rheumatoid arthritis and cardiovascular disease.”

Sanders reiterated, as he has for years, that Medicare coverage should include dental and vision coverage.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, ranking member on the HELP Committee, said that about “88% of Americans have dental coverage,” though he noted the “pent-up demand for dental care is greater than the pent-up demand for medical care.”

Cassidy, a doctor, said that while traditional Medicare doesn’t cover dental procedures, about “98% of Medicare Advantage plans offer dental benefits and more than half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in an MA plan.”

He appeared to reject the proposal to add dental coverage to Medicare in the immediate future, noting that the program is slated to hit a significant funding shortfall in about 10 years.

“With Medicare on track for insolvency in a little over a decade, we should also think about making that sustainable before adding programs to it,” he said.

Cassidy also criticized how Medicaid, a program that provides health insurance for low-income people, currently approaches dental care.

“The reimbursement rate under Medicaid is so lousy that frankly it’s the illusion of coverage without the power of access,” Cassidy said. “If you’re losing money on every patient you see who’s covered by Medicaid, you can’t make it up.”

Problems in rural America

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski raised the issue of access to dentists in rural areas, including her home state, during the hearing.

“I grew up in a part of the state where if you needed to go to the dentist, you got in an airplane or you got on a ferry and more often than not, you went to Seattle,” she said. “And that was not a cheap trip, but that was how we got our health care.”

“We have improved dramatically since then, but we still have far too many communities where access is an issue,” Murkowski added.

There are still many examples where “overall health outcomes have been impacted negatively, because it began with poor oral health care,” she said.

Dr. Gordon Roswell Isbell III, past trustee of the Academy of General Dentistry from Alabama, said that ensuring there are enough dentists and dental hygienists in rural areas is a challenge. He suggested developing programs that get dentists into rural areas.

“I know in our state that’s something we’ve worked hard at and we’re having some success,” Isbell said, adding that rural citizens “deserve” good dental care.

Swann testified that dental schools need more role models who can demonstrate to students the best ways to live and work in rural areas. He also suggested providing incentives and “innovative business models.”

Minter-Jordan said that one-third of rural residents do not have dental insurance and that 4 in 10 adults in rural areas haven’t seen a dentist in more than a year.

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan said during the hearing that while her home state expanded Medicaid coverage last year to include dental care, she’s hearing from a lot of people that it’s extremely challenging to find a dentist in rural areas who is accepting new patients and takes Medicaid.

Simon said that recruiting dentistry students from rural areas “can make a small dent in making these communities better served.”

Missouri Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall stands at the left and Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is on the right (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Wednesday rejected efforts to roll back guidance from the Treasury Department regarding how state and local governments can spend funding approved by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The 46-49 vote on the Congressional Review Act resolution ended an attempt by several GOP senators to block the Biden administration from changing the definition of “obligation” as it relates to State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and the timeline for spending some of that money.

Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt said during floor debate that the Treasury Department’s change in guidance, which was released in November, was trying to “pull a fast one” on Congress.

“Treasury’s attempted sleight of hand to keep the COVID spending spigot on is an insult to Congress and those who believe in our Constitution, as well as a complete misuse of taxpayer dollars,” Schmitt said.

The fund for state and local governments, Schmitt said, was intended to assist with “revenue shortfalls tied to the COVID-19 pandemic” and the law clearly stated that “all costs incurred with money from this fund must be incurred by Dec. 31, 2024.”

The interim final rule that the Treasury Department released around Thanksgiving extended that deadline by two years for “administrative and legal costs, such as compliance costs and internal control requirements,” he said.

“This rule ensures that funding does not go to bridges or broadband, but to bureaucrats,” Schmitt said.

Projects affected in multiple states

Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden spoke against the CRA resolution during floor debate, saying it could have impacted 17 projects in Georgia, 160 in Michigan, 342 in Ohio, 50 in Arizona, 404 in Montana and 73 in West Virginia.

“Nationwide there could be thousands of projects closed. Tens or even hundreds of jobs lost,” Wyden said. “This one is one of the most unusual votes that I’ve seen recently, a true head scratcher.”

Wyden said he didn’t “see a good reason for the United States Senate to backtrack on solid, bipartisan progress and have this chamber act in a way that leaves more of our nation’s infrastructure in a state of disrepair.”

Schmitt said during a press conference before the vote that the claim the CRA resolution would have impacted projects already underway was a lie.

“Essentially the obligations that are committed before the end of 2024, according to existing law, will be honored,” Schmitt said. “What this says is that you can’t extend that out into ‘25 and ‘26. That was never the congressional intent here.”

Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, also speaking at the GOP press conference, said the CRA resolution would claw back about $13 billion and went as far as calling it “illegal spending.”

“The clock is going to run out, but Joe Biden is trying to circumvent the law once again,” Marshall said, adding that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and spending from those laws needs to wind down.

Counties, cities opposed

Schmitt introduced the two-page CRA resolution in February along with Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Marshall and Rick Scott of Florida.

The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities and the Government Finance Officers Association urged lawmakers to vote against the CRA in a written statement released Wednesday before the vote.

“The $350 billion SLFRF provided $65.1 billion to every city and county in America, and since 2021, localities have used these crucial resources to meet the unique needs of residents and support long-term economic prosperity,” the statement read.

The three organizations wrote that the Treasury Department’s interim final rule “recognized the importance of flexibility in facilitating the effective rollout of recovery funds, including our ability to use funds for certain personnel costs and to re-obligate funds where necessary.”

The White House released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday, saying that President Joe Biden would veto the CRA had it reached his desk.

The CRA resolution, it said, “could result in projects being canceled midstream, reduced project management and oversight, and higher costs as state and local governments are forced to contract out programs.”

“Nearly all SLFRF funds have been committed to projects, including infrastructure and disaster relief projects made eligible by bipartisan legislation,” the SAP read. “S.J. Res. 57 would create unnecessary uncertainty for recipients that are executing on projects, jeopardize important work underway, and inappropriately constrain Treasury’s ability to address ongoing implementation issues.”

A newly released analysis from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University ranks members of Congress on bipartisanship (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins and Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick were the most bipartisan members of Congress last year, according to a newly released analysis from the Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University.

The least bipartisan House lawmaker was Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, while Alabama’s Katie Britt, a Republican freshman, placed last among senators.

The latest ranking of the most bipartisan lawmakers comes amid one of the least productive Congresses in the nation’s history and just months before nearly all House lawmakers and about one-third of the Senate face voters at the polls in November.

Maria Cancian, dean of the McCourt School of Public Policy, wrote in a statement announcing the new rankings that “while there is much room for improvement, I am encouraged to see some progress on cross-party collaboration.”

“In these deeply divided times, and with an increasing amount of misleading information online, we need tools like the Bipartisan Index more than ever — an evidence-based and nonpartisan approach for measuring how well policymakers work across the aisle to get things done,” Cancian wrote.

Lugar Center Policy Director Dan Diller wrote that it was “especially disheartening that all eight new Senators who took office in January 2023 ranked in the bottom 30 percent of Senate scores.”

“Bipartisan cooperation on legislation in 2023 was deficient by historical standards, though there were some marginal improvements in scores from the previous Congress,” Diller wrote.

The website with the rankings states that the “Bipartisan Index is intended to fill a hole in the information available to the public about the performance of Members of Congress.”

The Lugar Center, founded by the late U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, “is a platform for informed debate and analysis of global issues, including nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global food security, foreign assistance effectiveness and global development, energy security, and enhancing bipartisan governance,” according to its website.

The rankings take into consideration “the frequency with which a member of Congress sponsors bills that are co-sponsored by at least one member of the opposing party” and “the frequency with which a member co-sponsors bills introduced by members of the opposite Party.”

Who is the most bipartisan?

The top 10 senators were:

• Collins
• Michigan Democrat Gary Peters
• New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan
• West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin
• Texas Republican John Cornyn
• Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen
• Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski
• Kansas Republican Jerry Moran
• Indiana Republican Todd Young
• Montana Democrat Jon Tester

The top 10 House lawmakers were:

• Fitzpatrick
• New York Republican Marcus Molinaro
• New Hampshire Democrat Chris Pappas
• New York Republican Mike Lawler
• North Carolina Democrat Don Davis
• Puerto Rico Republican Delegate Jenniffer González-Colón
• Nevada Democrat Susie Lee
• Nebraska Republican Don Bacon
• New Jersey Democrat Josh Gottheimer
• Iowa Republican Zach Nunn

The Lugar Center and the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University wrote on their website that their “aim in publishing this Index is not to promote a specific legislative agenda, as is the case for many indexes, but solely the promotion of a bipartisan approach to governance.”

“The credibility of the Index is derived from the objectivity of its methodology; Index scores are computed formulaically from publically available data,” it states. “The Index requires no subjective assessment of specific legislative items.”

The least bipartisan House lawmakers following Jordan were New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Missouri Democrat Cori Bush, New York Democrat Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Republican Eric Burlison.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, ranked 423, but will likely be excluded from future scores since he has now occupied one of the top two leadership posts for at least six months.

The least bipartisan senators following Britt were Missouri Republican Eric Schmitt, Washington state Democrat Patty Murray, Wisconsin Republican Ron Johnson and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton.

A sales representative shows prospective customers a BYD Dolphin electric car at a BYD dealership on April 05, 2024 in Berlin, Germany. BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, is a Chinese manufacturer that went from making solar panels to electric cars (Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is doubling and in some cases tripling tariffs on Chinese-made products, like steel and electric vehicles, in a move aimed at easing economic pain in battleground states, though senior administration officials say it isn’t political.

National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard told reporters on a call Monday ahead of the announcement that the steep increase to several tariffs would help address the Chinese government “flooding global markets with exports that are underpriced due to unfair practices.”

“We know China’s unfair practices have harmed communities in Michigan and Pennsylvania and around the country that are now having the opportunity to come back due to President Biden’s investment agenda,” Brainard said, mentioning two crucial swing states ahead of November’s election.

President Joe Biden’s decision to increase several tariffs, Brainard said, ensures “that American businesses and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in industries that are vital to our future, such as clean energy and semiconductors.”

Here are the tariffs that will increase and when the White House will implement those changes:

• Steel and aluminum will move from a 7.5% tariff to a 25% tariff this year.
• Semiconductor tariffs will rise from 25% to 50% before 2025.
• Electric vehicle tariffs will increase from 25% to 100% this year.
• Batteries: The tariff on lithium-ion EV batteries and battery parts will rise from 7.5% to 25% in 2024. The tariff on lithium-ion non-EV batteries will rise to the same level in 2026.
• Solar cells will rise from a 25% tariff to a 50% tariff this year.
• Ship-to-shore cranes will get a 25% tariff this year. They currently aren’t subject to tariffs.
• Medical products: Tariffs on personal protective equipment, including face masks, will increase this year and tariffs on rubber medical and surgical gloves will go up in 2026. Both will be set at 25%. Tariffs on syringes and needles will go from not having a tariff to 50% in 2024.

Senators appealed for tariff increases

A group of seven Democratic U.S. senators wrote to Biden earlier this month, urging him and United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai to “maintain or increase the tariffs to address China’s continued actions to cheat and undermine our national security.”

Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Bob Casey and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York all signed on to the letter.

The senators wrote that tariffs “are an important tool to level the playing field and combat anti-competitive practices from non-market economies and trade cheats, and they must remain in place.”

“China has continued to cheat, circumvent, and manipulate to artificially strengthen its economy and harm the United States,” the senators wrote. “Across sectors like steel, solar products, and electric vehicles, China employs tactics to distort markets and create artificially low prices by illegally subsidizing its industries and producing to overcapacity.”

Tariffs on electric vehicles

A senior administration official, speaking with reporters on background Monday to discuss details of the changes, said the higher tariffs on electric vehicles are necessary to avoid China having an unfair share of the global market.

“If we have a level playing field, we and other countries will have the chance to compete and that’s the kind of dynamic that we think will produce resilient supply chains and clean technology and give us our best chance of meeting our climate goals,” the senior administration official said.

A second senior administration official declined to “speculate” about whether China would set retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, saying that officials from that country are likely to speak publicly in the coming days.

A third senior administration official on the call said the decision to raise certain tariffs and the timing of the announcement “has nothing to do with politics.”

That official also said there are differences between the production of electric and gas-powered vehicles in China, which is why the Biden administration is raising tariffs on one, but not the other.

“We’ve been thoroughly studying and assessing how the Chinese have been investing in their electric vehicle domestic industry and the range of unfair best practices that are giving them a significant unfair pricing competitive advantage,” the third official said. “So I think that’s the reason why we’re moving towards a significant step up in the tariff rate for electric vehicles.”

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., right, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., stand for the national anthem during the statue dedication ceremony for civil rights leader Daisy Bates in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Efforts by a small group of far-right U.S. House Republicans to remove Speaker Mike Johnson from his leadership role failed Wednesday night, ending weeks of infighting about whether the Louisianan should remain the head of that chamber.

Republican lawmakers joined by Democrats voted 359-43 to table, or set aside, the so-called motion to vacate that Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene originally filed in March, before spending weeks calling for Johnson to resign.

Greene was backed by Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar ahead of the vote, though a few more GOP lawmakers signaled their frustrations with Johnson’s leadership by voting to move ahead with a vote, instead of tabling it.

Greene, reading from her lengthy motion to vacate before the vote, rejected Johnson bringing broadly bipartisan bills to the House floor during his six months as speaker.

The government funding bills, Greene said, showed that “Johnson supported fully funding abortion, the trans agenda, the climate agenda, foreign wars and Biden’s border crisis, rather than ensuring liberty, opportunity and security for all Americans.”

“Mike Johnson is ill-equipped to handle the rigors or the job of speaker of the House and has allowed a uniparty — one that fuels foreign wars, tramples on civil liberties and increases our disastrous national debt — to take complete control of the House of Representatives,” Greene said.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican, moved to table Greene’s motion.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar announced last week they would vote to keep Johnson in the speaker’s office.

“We will vote to table Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Motion to Vacate the Chair,” they wrote at the time. “If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed.”

Greene and Massie met with Johnson for two hours on Monday and about 90 minutes on Tuesday, laying out their requirements for not offering the motion to vacate. Greene said the ball was in Johnson’s court on whether to comply with the changes or not.

Big change from McCarthy vote

The vote was considerably different from the vote to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, that took place in October after Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz filed another motion to vacate.

Eight Republicans and the chamber’s Democrats all voted to remove McCarthy from his leadership post.

The House Republican Conference then spent weeks debating behind closed doors who should become their nominee for speaker — first selecting Scalise, who withdrew after just one day without holding a floor vote; then choosing Ohio’s Jim Jordan, who took his bid to the floor for a series of failed votes; and then Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer, who withdrew after just hours as the nominee.

House Republicans then voted to nominate Johnson, who received unanimous support from fellow GOP lawmakers during the floor vote.

Johnson held that leadership role for less than six months before Greene began calling for him to step down from the speaker’s office or face a motion to vacate him from the office on the House floor.

Greene and others have become increasingly angry that Johnson has brought bipartisan bills to the floor for votes, including government funding legislation, the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and a $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

Johnson’s detractors argue that he should have done more to push for conservative policy wins, even though any legislation that passes the House must move through the Democratic-controlled Senate and avoid President Joe Biden’s veto pen in order to become law.

Greene has also argued that Johnson allowing broadly bipartisan legislation to pass on the House floor could risk Republican candidates’ chances of winning seats during the November elections.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf testifies before the U.S. Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on Wednesday (Screenshot from Senate livestream).

WASHINGTON — The commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said at a congressional hearing Wednesday the agency is preparing for the possibility the strain of avian influenza affecting dairy cattle could jump to humans, though he cautioned the probability is low.

Robert Califf told senators on the panel in charge of his agency’s funding that top officials from the FDA, Agriculture Department and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are speaking daily to keep a handle on the situation. He also stressed that pasteurized milk is safe.

“This virus, like all viruses, is mutating,” Califf said. “We need to continue to prepare for the possibility that it might jump to humans.”

Califf told senators that the “real worry is that it will jump to the human lungs where, when that has happened in other parts of the world for brief outbreaks, the mortality rate has been 25%.”

That would be about 10 times worse than the death rate from COVID-19, he said.

Califf stressed the possibility is low and the CDC continues to maintain its assessment that “the current public health risk is low.”

The H5N1 bird flu strain has had an impact on 36 dairy herds in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas, according to the CDC.

Two cases have been reported in people — one who had exposure to dairy cows in Texas that were “presumed to be infected” and one in Colorado “involved in the culling (depopulating) of poultry with presumptive H5N1 bird flu.” Both cases were reported in April, according to the CDC.

The Texas case “reported eye redness (consistent with conjunctivitis), as their only symptom” while the Colorado case reported “fatigue for a few days as their only symptom and has since recovered,” according to the CDC.

Multiple federal agencies involved

Califf told the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee during the hearing the Agriculture Department holds jurisdiction over the dairy cows, the FDA is in charge of making sure milk and other foods are safe and the CDC has the responsibility to ensure the safety of farmworkers.

The FDA has repeatedly tested milk on store shelves throughout the country and found no live virus, due to pasteurization, he said.

The agency is interested in testing milk before the pasteurization process begins, though Califf said they’ve had some difficulties getting access to dairy farms.

“Access to the farms, for example, is really something that has to be negotiated through the states,” he said. “The farmers and the owners of dairy farms are more comfortable with people that they know that are in their state. So all this has to be coordinated.”

Califf explained that when cows are milked, that “goes into bulk tanks, which is a mixture of a number of cows.”

“That’s a very sensitive area because it does point, if there are infected cows, as to where the infections are,” Califf testified. “And technically it’s no problem, but we want to make sure we have trust. And so there’s negotiation that needs to go on to make sure there’s a safe way to handle the data and that people are not going to be castigated if they happen to have an infected herd. So we’re working through all that state by state.”

Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin urged the FDA to coordinate and communicate frequently with farmers and the public.

Her home state, she noted, has more than 5,000 dairy herds, making up 22% of the nation’s total herd count. “So this is a big deal for us.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., speak to reporters in Statuary Hall after meeting with U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., in the U.S. Capitol Building on May 06, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Last week, Greene threatened to move forward with a ‘motion to vacate’ over her dissatisfaction with the Speaker’s handling of the government funding legislation (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene plan to meet privately Tuesday amid her calls for him to resign or face a floor vote that could, but likely won’t, remove the Louisiana Republican from leadership.

Greene announced the meeting Monday evening after she and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie met privately with Johnson for two hours over disagreements about how he’s been running the House with a narrow GOP majority.

Greene, speaking briefly to reporters outside the speaker’s office after the meeting wrapped up, didn’t divulge details of what she, Massie and Johnson discussed.

“Let me tell you, I have been patient. I have been diligent. I have been steady. And I’ve been focused on the facts,” Greene said. “And none of that has changed. So I just had a long discussion with the speaker in his office about ways to move forward for a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.”

Greene, standing next to Massie, then said they would be meeting again on Tuesday.

Greene repeatedly has expressed her anger that Johnson has brought successful pieces of legislation to the House floor with bipartisan backing. Some of those recent bipartisan measures include government funding packages in March and military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in April.

Johnson last week issued a statement that Greene’s motion to vacate was wrong.

“This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country,” he wrote.

House Democratic leaders last week issued a statement vowing to back Johnson if far-right Republicans try to remove him as speaker, which makes it unlikely the motion to vacate will succeed.

In late March, Greene filed a resolution to remove Johnson, following a bipartisan vote to approve the last remaining appropriations bill of fiscal year 2024. Since then, she has gained support from Massie and Arizona’s Paul Gosar.

Johnson was unanimously elected to the post about seven months ago following three weeks of chaos in October, in which Republicans were unable to agree on a lawmaker to take the speaker’s gavel after a small group of GOP lawmakers ousted former Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California.

An attendee looks at a series of banners for National Crime Victims’ Rights Week Candlelight Vigil on the National Mall on April 24, 2024, in Washington, D.C. The Justice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime held the event to pay tribute to victims and survivors of crime and individuals who provide service and support (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — States and local organizations that aid victims of sexual assault and other crimes are raising the alarm about a multi-year plunge in funds, a major problem they say Congress must fix soon or programs will be forced to set up wait lists or turn victims away altogether.

Affected are rape crisis centers, domestic violence shelters, child advocacy centers and more that serve millions of Americans and can’t necessarily rely on scarce state or local dollars to keep the doors open if federal money runs short.

The problem has to do with a cap on withdrawals from the federal crime victims fund, put in place by Congress years ago in an earlier attempt at a solution.

Under the cap, how much money is available every year is determined by a complex three-year average of court fees, fines and penalties that have accumulated — a number that has plummeted by billions during the past six years. The fund does not receive any taxpayer dollars.

National Children’s Alliance CEO Teresa Huizar said in an interview with States Newsroom that child advocacy centers, which help connect children who have survived sexual or domestic abuse to essential services, have no fat left to trim in their budgets.

“What children’s advocacy centers are really looking at now are a set of extremely hard choices,” Huizar said. “Which kids to serve, which kids to turn away? CACs that have never had to triage cases previously, now will have to. CACs that have never had a waitlist for mental health services will now have long, lengthy waitlists to get kids in for therapy.”

“I mean, imagine being a kid who’s been sexually abused and being told you’re going to have to wait six months to see a counselor,” Huizar added. “It’s terrible.”

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, chairwoman of the spending panel that sets the cap every year based on the dwindling revenue, and Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran, the subcommittee’s ranking member, both indicated during brief interviews with States Newsroom that a fix is in the works, but declined to provide details.

“There is an effort to address that and we’re in the process of doing that, but in the meantime there’s not as much money there,” Shaheen said.

Fund goes up and down by billions every year

Congress established the crime victims fund in 1984 when it approved the Victims of Crime Act. Its funding comes from fines, forfeited bonds and other financial penalties in certain federal cases.

The money flowing into the fund fluctuates each year, making it difficult for the organizations that apply for and receive grant funding to plan their budgets. Congress hoped to alleviate those boom-and-bust cycles by placing the annual cap on how much money can be drawn from the crime victims fund.

But that cap has sharply decreased recently, causing frustration for organizations that rely on it and leading to repeated calls for Congress to find a long-term solution.

The cap stayed below $1 billion annually until fiscal year 2015 when it spiked to $2.3 billion before reaching a high of $4.4 billion in fiscal year 2018.

The annual ceiling then dropped by more than $1 billion, starting the downward trend, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service and data from the Department of Justice.

The cap was set at $2 billion in fiscal year 2021 before rising to $2.6 billion in fiscal 2022 and then dropping to $1.9 billion in fiscal 2023.

Congress set the cap on withdrawals at $1.2 billion for fiscal 2024 when it approved the latest round of appropriations in March, and states and localities have reacted with concern at the prospect of such a dramatic cut. In Iowa, for example, where the state receives $5 million a year, the potential loss of funding posed a major question as legislators wrote their budget for judicial services.

A better fix sought

Congress approved legislation in 2021 to increase the types of revenue from federal court cases moving into the crime victims fund, but advocates say a longer-term answer is needed.

Huizar said the National Children’s Alliance and prosecutors as well as organizations that combat domestic and sexual violence have been urging Congress to fix the funding stream or supplement it to provide stability and consistency.

“Now is the time for Congress to turn urgent attention to this issue if they do not want the safety net for kids and families and serious crime victims to just fall apart,” Huizar said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers — Reps. Stephanie Bice, R-Okla., Jim Costa, D-Calif., Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., Nathaniel Moran, R-Texas and Ann Wagner, R-Mo. — have introduced legislation that would move unobligated funds collected from entities that defraud the federal government under the False Claims Act to the crime victims fund. The act is a main tool the federal government uses to fight fraud.

That bill is not a long-term solution, but a “temporary infusion of resources,” according to a summary released by lawmakers.

As for the Senate appropriators, Moran said he and others on the spending subcommittee “are waiting for the Judiciary Committee’s examination of the issue, so that we can take the authorizers’ suggestions and take them into account when we appropriate.”

Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, wrote in a statement the “sustainability of the CVF is extremely important, as evidenced by Senator Durbin’s work on the VOCA Fix that passed in 2021, and we continue to work with our colleagues and survivor advocates and service providers to examine further ways to strengthen the CVF.”

Shaheen’s office did not provide details about what changes may be in the works, following multiple requests from States Newsroom.

Should taxpayer dollars be tapped?

National District Attorneys Association President Charles Smith said his organization supports the House bill, but noted one problem with the short-term fix is that the crime victims fund would be last in line to get the additional revenue.

“I believe that the government gets their money first, the whistleblower second and then we’re in kind of third place there,” Smith said.

One struggle over the fluctuating revenue and available funding, Smith said, is debate about whether taxpayer dollars should be used to offset low balances.

“We need to set a number that everybody’s happy with, so to speak, and fund it through these available sources,” Smith said. “But if there’s a deficit, there needs to be some mechanism in place for it to come out of the general fund.”

The crime victims fund is essential for witness coordinators and victims assistance coordinators in prosecutors’ offices as well as other services for people who survive crimes.

“They’re critical for the well-being of the victim and a lot of times they are critical for the witness even showing up and testifying,” said Smith, who also is the state’s attorney for Frederick County, Maryland.

The organizations that support crime victims, like child advocacy centers, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, are crucial to prosecutors, Smith said.

“Not only are we directly impacted by a loss of staffing and loss of resources, but a lot of the partner agencies that we rely on collaborating with are going to be hurt as well,” Smith said of the reduction to the funding cap.

‘Real alarm’ in states

Karrie Delaney, director of federal affairs for the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, said the slowdown of court cases during the COVID-19 pandemic and the last administration not prosecuting as many corporate cases has impacted the fund more than usual.

RAINN is the country’s largest anti-sexual-violence organization. It operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800-656-HOPE) alongside local organizations and runs the Defense Department’s Safe Helpline. It “also carries out programs to prevent sexual violence, help survivors, and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice,” according to its website.

“I think what’s important from RAINN’s perspective is the actual impact that those fluctuations have on the survivors that we support and organizations and service providers across the country,” Delaney said.

When the federal cap decreases, she said, organizations that support crime victims often turn to state and local governments to make up the gap. And a lot of the times there aren’t enough funds to do that.

“What we’ve seen across the states is real alarm that the cuts coming down are not just impacting the ability of these organizations to offer certain services, but to really keep their doors open,” Delaney said.

Child advocacy centers, domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, Delaney added, are the “real boots on the ground organizations that are helping people in times of very active crisis that are at risk of seeing their programs drastically cut to the point where service is placed in jeopardy.”

Dr. Samuel Cook, a resident at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on May 2, 2024, about the need for more support for HBCU schools of medicine (Screenshot from U.S. Senate webcast).

WASHINGTON — Doctors on Thursday urged Congress to pass legislation addressing the disproportionately high rates of maternal mortality throughout the country and to lower barriers that have hindered people of color from becoming medical professionals.

During a hearing in the U.S. Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a panel of five medical professionals detailed health disparities for communities of color, including higher rates of maternal mortality.

“Research consistently demonstrates that patients from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds experience better outcomes when treated by health care providers who share their racial and ethnic backgrounds,” said Dr. Yolanda Lawson, president of the National Medical Association and an OBGYN in Texas. “In short, patients can have better health outcomes when their doctors look like them.”

“Yet, Black doctors remain vastly underrepresented,” Lawson added.

Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, ranking member on the committee and a doctor, noted that “African American physicians account for only 8% of all physicians despite comprising 13.6% of the population.”

Cassidy said that reducing maternal mortality has been a top issue for him during his time in Congress and said “it’s important to acknowledge that this issue disproportionately affects African Americans.”

California Democratic Sen. Laphonza Butler testified that the “United States has the highest rate of maternal mortality among high-income nations.”

“Within recent years, thousands of women have lost their lives due to pregnancy-related causes,” Butler said. “And over the past decade, while the birth rate in this country has declined by roughly 20%, maternal mortality rates have steadily risen.”

She implored the committee to debate and approve the so-called Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, legislation introduced last year by New Jersey Democratic Sen. Senator Cory Booker, Illinois Democratic Rep. Lauren Underwood and North Carolina Democratic Rep. Alma Adams. It currently has 31 co-sponsors in the Senate and 193 in the House.

“This legislation is not just about the life and death of Black women — its enactment will improve birthing outcomes for all women,” Butler said.

HELP Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, indicated the panel would take up the legislation in the months ahead.

Sanders also said Congress should also look at increasing funding for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, also known as WIC; increasing class size at Historically Black Colleges and Universities to increase Black representation in the health care workforce; and making medical schools tuition-free to reduce the mountains of student loan debt that can serve as an obstacle to more people of color becoming doctors.

Thursday’s hearing coincided with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s release of new maternal mortality data, showing that 817 women died during 2022 — a decrease from the 1,205 deaths the year before, but roughly in line with the 861 deaths from 2020.

The maternal mortality rate for Black women was 49.5 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 19 for white women, 16.9 for Hispanic women and 13.2 for Asian women.

Funding for HBCU medical schools

Dr. Samuel Cook, a resident at Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, said during the hearing that medical students of color “sacrifice our physical, mental, spiritual and financial wellbeing to be the change in the medical field we so desperately seek.”

“So now we ardently advocate for the reintroduction of legislation which would specifically fund and protect the growth of HBCU medical schools,” he said.

Cook told the committee that the exorbitant cost of medical school is “the greatest impediment in recruiting Black and brown doctors to our workforce.” He currently holds nearly $400,000 in student loan debt.

Dr. Brian Stone, president of Jasper Urology Associates in Jasper, Alabama, told senators there are “serious challenges” that must be addressed in access to Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, or STEM, education for Black and brown students.

“There’s a wealth of data showing better health outcomes when Black patients have Black physicians. And this applies across different cultures,” Stone said. “This is because when you have cultural connectivity, you have better communication, you have shared experiences and you can overcome the mistrust that has developed over the decades.”

Stone said his home state of Alabama has a population of about 4.8 million people, of whom about 25.8% are Black. “Yet we only have 7% of the physician workforce that’s Black.”

Stone told the committee that there’s a huge need to replace retiring physicians. And he said that making several changes, like providing mentors early and reducing the financial burden, can help to bridge the gap that’s forming.

“Currently, we have about 71,000 physicians retiring per year for the past few years. We only graduated 21,000 medical students per year,” Stone said. “And if you follow the mathematics, you see where we’re going to end up. We’re going to need some very creative ideas to get us out of this situation.”

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks during a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, about removing U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson from the leadership office. Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who supports the effort, stands to her left (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. House Republicans, aggrieved by Speaker Mike Johnson’s bipartisanship amid divided government, said Wednesday they plan to force a vote next week on removing him from the leadership office — despite the extremely long odds of success.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie held a press conference just steps from the Capitol, calling for lawmakers and Johnson to use the weekend to think through how they want to vote on the so-called motion to vacate.

She also rebuked Democrats for their plans to support Johnson’s speakership, implying it would be problematic for them when voters decide on whether to reelect lawmakers in November.

“I can’t wait to see Democrats go out and support a Republican speaker. And have to go home to their primaries and have to run for Congress again, having supported a Republican speaker, a Christian conservative,” Greene said. “I think that’ll play well. I’m excited about it.”

“I also can’t wait to see my Republican Conference show their cards and show who we are because voters deserve it,” she added. “Have the Republican Party finally learned their lesson, have they finally heard the message from voters back at home?”

Congress, which is split between Republican control of the House and Democratic control of the Senate, has passed too many bipartisan bills during Johnson’s six months in leadership, Greene said.

That includes the government funding packages approved in March; a reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; and the military and humanitarian assistance package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan approved in April.

Massie rejected the bipartisan legislation as well, pointing to two posters staff had set up at the press conference showing Johnson and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York holding the gavel and hugging.

The two leaders, Massie contended, should be “archrivals,” not working together to advance bipartisan legislation through Congress.

“This is about who holds that gavel,” Massie said. “Right now, they are both holding that gavel. They are sharing power about procedures, about what bills will come to the floor, about how long we will debate those bills and which committees are comprised of which members.”

Johnson: ‘This motion is wrong’

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, released a written statement after the press conference saying the motion to vacate is not the right path forward.

“This motion is wrong for the Republican Conference, wrong for the institution, and wrong for the country,” Johnson wrote.

House Democratic Leaders released a statement Tuesday saying the party would support Johnson during a floor vote, likely dooming efforts to oust him from the speaker’s office given the slim GOP majority.

Arizona GOP Rep. Paul Gosar supports removing Johnson from the leadership post as well, but was unable to attend the press conference Wednesday due to a scheduling conflict, according to Greene.

Many of the Republican Party’s other far-right members, including Freedom Caucus Chairman Bob Good of Virginia, have said the best time to have internal debates about House leadership is after the November elections.

Greene said during the Wednesday press conference that the vote will give all Americans the chance to see which lawmakers support Johnson remaining speaker and which want to remove him from leadership.

“This vote will be called next week and I just want to urge all our colleagues to prepare for it,” Greene said. “It’s the right thing to do for America. It’s time to clean house and get our conference in order and get ready to support President Trump’s agenda, God willing he wins in November.”

Trump has publicly expressed support for Johnson remaining speaker in the last month, saying during a joint appearance at Mar-a-Lago that Johnson is “doing a very good job” and then, following the foreign aid vote, that “he’s a very good person.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., left, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talk during a ceremony as the remains of retired Army Col. Ralph Puckett lie in honor during his congressional tribute in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on April 29, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (J. Scott Applewhite – Pool/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democratic Leaders on Tuesday killed efforts by a small group of far-right House Republicans to remove Speaker Mike Johnson from his leadership post.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar released a joint statement saying their members would vote against efforts to oust Johnson using the so-called motion to vacate — an extraordinary sign of bipartisan support in the House.

“We will vote to table Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Motion to Vacate the Chair,” they wrote. “If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed.”

Greene, a Georgia Republican, filed the motion to remove Johnson, of Louisiana, in March. She has since gained support from Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar.

But other members of the House Freedom Caucus, including Chairman Bob Good of Virginia, have said the GOP Conference should wait until after the November elections to debate leadership.

The far-right GOP lawmakers are frustrated that Johnson has brought numerous bipartisan measures to the floor, including government funding packages as well as military aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. 

The trio of House Democratic lawmakers wrote in the Tuesday statement that “(f)rom the very beginning of this Congress, House Democrats have put people over politics and found bipartisan common ground with traditional Republicans in order to deliver real results.”

“At the same time, House Democrats have aggressively pushed back against MAGA extremism. We will continue to do just that,” they wrote.

Johnson, asked about the statement during a press conference Tuesday morning, said he hadn’t heard about the statement.

“I’ve not requested assistance from anyone,” Johnson said. “I’m not focused on that at all. I’m focused on getting the job done and getting the legislation passed.”

Johnson said that “no deals at all” were made with Democrats to secure their support during a possible motion to vacate vote.

President Joe Biden on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, signed into law foreign aid that includes $60.84 billion in assistance for Ukraine. In this photo, Biden delivers remarks about Russia’s “unprovoked and unjustified” military invasion of neighboring Ukraine in the East Room of the White House on Feb. 24, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan emergency spending law Wednesday to provide an additional $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, ending months of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and public pleas for Congress to approve the funding.

The package also included a measure requiring the popular app TikTok be sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, or face a possible ban.

“It should have been easier and it should have gotten there sooner,” Biden said of the spending. “But in the end, we did what America always does — we rose to the moment, we came together and we got it done.”

The foreign aid funding, he said, was not just an investment in the security of American allies but of the United States itself.

“We’re sending Ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles, then we’ll replenish those stockpiles with new products made by American companies here in America,” Biden said. “Patriot missiles made in Arizona, javelins made in Alabama, artillery shells made in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.”

Biden reiterated that America’s commitment to Israel is “ironclad” and that he would ensure “Israel has what it needs to defend itself against Iran and the terrorists that it supports.”

He also called on Israel to ensure that humanitarian aid can reach civilians in Gaza, who are “suffering the consequences of this war that Hamas started.”

“Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said. “And everything we do is guided by the ultimate goal of bringing these hostages home, securing a ceasefire and setting the conditions for an enduring peace.”

The Pentagon announced a $1 billion military assistance package for Ukraine minutes after Biden signed the law that includes “air defense interceptors, artillery rounds, armored vehicles, and anti-tank weapons.”

Six months of fighting over assistance

Congress has spent the last six months debating the best way to pass the aid, after Biden sent an emergency spending request to lawmakers in October.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate insisted that changes to border security and immigration laws accompany the military and humanitarian assistance.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford, Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Arizona independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema huddled for months before reaching a deal.

But former Republican President Donald Trump urged GOP lawmakers to block the bill from advancing in the Senate amid concerns that it would provide a win to the Biden administration in a policy area that weighs heavily for many voters.

After Senate Republicans blocked a package that included the bipartisan border security bill, that chamber moved to pass a $95 billion emergency spending package with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan.

That measure passed in February, but spent the next two months stalled in the House as Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, held a series of meetings on whether that chamber should act.

Johnson ultimately decided to move forward, releasing four bills that would each receive separate votes, before being bundled as one package and sent to the Senate.

The $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan was strikingly similar to the Senate bill with an exception that economic aid for Ukraine be categorized as a forgivable loan.

The House voted Saturday to approve all four bills on broadly bipartisan votes and the Senate voted Tuesday night to send the package to Biden’s desk.

House GOP leaders added a measure to the emergency spending bills — called the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act — that wrapped together numerous bills, including the one that requires ByteDance to sell the social media app within one year or face a possible ban within the United States.

Washington Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell, chairwoman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, said Tuesday that she found it “disturbing” the Chinese government “used TikTok to repeatedly access U.S. user data and track multiple journalists covering the company.”

“As of December 2023, an analysis by Rutgers University found that TikTok posts mentioning topics that are sensitive to the Chinese Government, including Tiananmen Square, Uighurs, and the Dalai Lama were significantly less prevalent on TikTok than on Instagram, the most comparable social media,” Cantwell said.

“Foreign policy issues disfavored by China and Russian Governments also had fewer hashtags on TikTok, such as pro-Ukraine or pro-Israel hashtags,” she added.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that “it is not hard to imagine how a platform that facilitates so much commerce, political discourse and social debate could be covertly manipulated to serve the goals of an authoritarian regime, one with a long track record of censorship, transnational oppression and promotion of disinformation.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, speaks during a press conference inside the U.S. Capitol building on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — An additional $95 billion in military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan is on a glide path to passage in the U.S. Senate after a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers voted Tuesday to limit debate on the package.

The 80-19 procedural vote sets up a final passage vote as soon as Tuesday evening, though that could move into Wednesday depending on how quickly debate wraps up.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a press conference after the vote that he believed the strong support showed the GOP had “turned the corner on the isolationist movement.”

McConnell also rebuked former Fox News TV personality Tucker Carlson for repeatedly criticizing Republicans for approving military aid to Ukraine.

“I think the demonization of Ukraine began by Tucker Carlson, who in my opinion ended up where he should have been all along, which is interviewing Vladimir Putin,” McConnell said. “He had an enormous audience, which convinced a lot of rank-and-file Republicans that maybe this is a mistake.”

The legislation, which includes a national security bill aimed at forcing the sale of the popular social media app TikTok by its Chinese parent company ByteDance, passed the U.S. House on Saturday in a series of four broadly bipartisan votes.

The legislation was then wrapped together and sent to the Senate as one package to speed up its approval in that chamber.

President Joe Biden plans to sign the measure as soon as it reaches his desk.

Biden spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Monday “to underscore the United States’ lasting commitment to supporting Ukraine as it defends its freedom against Russian aggression,” according to a readout of the call from the White House.

“President Biden shared that his administration will quickly provide significant new security assistance packages to meet Ukraine’s urgent battlefield and air defense needs as soon as the Senate passes the national security supplemental and he signs it into law,” according to the readout.

McConnell sees ‘a test on behalf of the entire nation’

McConnell gave a lengthy floor speech Tuesday before the vote defending the package as a way to bolster America’s global leadership and support American jobs.

“Today, the Senate sits for a test on behalf of the entire nation — it’s a test of American resolve, our readiness and our willingness to lead,” McConnell said. “And the stakes of failure are abundantly clear.”

The Kentucky Republican rebuked GOP lawmakers who have sought to delay or block the assistance, saying he would “not mince words when members of my own party take the responsibilities of American leadership lightly.”

“So much of the hesitation and short-sightedness that has delayed this moment is premised on sheer fiction,” McConnell said.

Investments in defense spending by the United States, he said, have led allies in Europe “to make historic investments of their own in collective defense,” which in some countries “is outpacing our own.”

American allies in Europe and the Indo-Pacific have collectively purchased more than $1 billion in weapons produced in American factories by American workers, McConnell said.

“Do our colleagues really think that will continue if America decides that global leadership is too heavy a burden?” McConnell asked.

Humanitarian help

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said securing the humanitarian aid in the package was a “red line” for her.

“At every stage of these negotiations, I made clear: Congress will not advance a supplemental that fails civilians,” Murray said. “I will not let us turn our back on women and children who are suffering, and who are often hit hardest by the fallout of chaos and conflict.”

That humanitarian assistance, Murray said, would go toward “civilians in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza, including kids who are caught in the crossfire, who are in desperate need of food and water and medical care.”

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, said the package would help bolster America’s national security at a crucial time in world history.

“The threats that the U.S. faces from an aggressive Iran and its proxies, an imperialistic Russia and a hegemonic China are interconnected,” Collins said. “How we respond to one affects how the other will operate.”

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized leaders for not holding separate votes on the four bills in the package, as the House did, and urged them to hold votes on amendments that he said would improve the measure.

Sanders said he supports humanitarian aid, weapons for Ukraine and giving Israel more funding for defensive weapons, like the “Iron Dome to protect Israeli civilians from missile and drone attacks.”

But Sanders rejected the legislation providing “$8.9 billion in unfettered offensive military aid to the extremist Israeli government” and he sharply criticized Israel’s leaders for limiting aid to civilians in Gaza.

“We are now in the absurd situation where Israel is using U.S. military assistance to block the delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to Palestinians,” Sanders said. “If that is not crazy, I don’t know what is. But it’s also a clear violation of U.S. law.”

How funds are allocated

The emergency spending for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan appropriates the money to the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy and State. They would then use that funding to bolster military and humanitarian assistance to those three entities as well as other U.S. allies.

The $95 billion in funding would be divided up with $60.84 billion for Ukraine; $26.38 billion for Israel, though $9.15 billion of that total is for humanitarian assistance for Gaza and other “vulnerable populations;” and $8.12 billion for Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific.

That spending is extremely similar to a package the Senate passed in February, but it was stalled in the House for months as Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, plotted a path forward.

The fourth bill in the package, dubbed the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act, is a 184-page measure that bundles together the TikTok divestment bill; anti-fentanyl legislation; and sanctions against China, Iran and Russia.

That bill also includes the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act, or Repo Act, that would allow the United States “to confiscate Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen in the United States and transfer them to assist in Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts,” according to a summary.

Lawsuit expected from ByteDance

The TikTok bill would require Chinese owner ByteDance to sell the social media company within one year of the bill becoming law. It’s an attempt by lawmakers to reduce what some see as a national security risk to Americans’ data privacy.

ByteDance is expected to file a lawsuit challenging the law once it’s enacted.

Former President Donald Trump, now the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, used a possible ban of the app to rebuke Biden over the weekend.

Trump, however, left out that he attempted something similar when he was in the Oval Office.

“Just so everyone knows, especially the young people, Crooked Joe Biden is responsible for banning TikTok,” Trump wrote.

“Young people, and lots of others, must remember this on November 5th, ELECTION DAY, when they vote!” Trump added.

Trump attempted to ban TikTok in August 2020 through an executive order but was blocked by the courts.

“TikTok automatically captures vast swaths of information from its users, including Internet and other network activity information such as location data and browsing and search histories,” according to Trump’s executive order.

“This data collection threatens to allow the Chinese Communist Party access to Americans’ personal and proprietary information — potentially allowing China to track the locations of Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”

The bill forcing TikTok parent’s company to sell the app or face a ban in the U.S. was added to the emergency spending package by House Republicans. It passed that chamber over the weekend on a 360-58 vote with 186 of the ‘yes’ votes coming from GOP lawmakers.

Georgia Republican U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks with reporters on the steps of the U.S. Capitol on Thursday. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Democrats on Thursday began coalescing behind Republican Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan to provide assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan through a series of three bills, though far-right members of his own party grew increasingly frustrated with the Louisianan’s bipartisan streak.

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is leading an effort to remove Johnson as speaker, told reporters that Johnson is maneuvering behind the scenes to possibly change the process that allows one member to call for a vote to remove the speaker. That is “unprecedented” and “completely wrong,” she said.

“If he wants to change the motion to vacate, he needs to come before the Republican Conference that elected him and tell us of his intentions,” Greene said.

“And I’ll tell you something, Kevin McCarthy, while he was staring down the barrel of a loaded gun, he never made a move like this behind closed doors and made deals with Democrats to change the motion to vacate,” Greene said, referring to the former House speaker who was ousted by Republicans last year. “And we’re hearing that’s exactly what Mike Johnson is doing.”

The motion to vacate currently allows any one member of the House to call for a floor vote to remove the speaker from the leadership post.

Greene said Thursday morning that Johnson is considering altering that motion to vacate process to make it more difficult to accomplish. That could cut off Greene and other far-right members from removing him for advancing foreign aid long sought by Democrats and backed by the U.S. Senate.

Johnson announced late Thursday afternoon that he wouldn’t be taking that step right now, though that’s unlikely to assuage concerns about his leadership style from far-right members.

“Since the beginning of the 118th Congress, the House rule allowing a Motion to Vacate from a single member has harmed this office and our House majority,” Johnson wrote in a social media post.

“Recently, many members have encouraged me to endorse a new rule to raise this threshold. While I understand the importance of that idea, any rule change requires a majority of the full House, which we do not have,” Johnson added. “We will continue to govern under the existing rules.”

Johnson said during a press conference on Wednesday evening that he wouldn’t allow speculation about a motion to vacate to dictate how he runs the House.

“My philosophy is you do the right thing and you let the chips fall where they may,” Johnson said. “If I operated out of fear over a motion to vacate, I would never be able to do my job.”

Johnson said providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine is the right thing to do at this point in history and that it could help deter Russia from attacking a NATO country, which could pull U.S. troops into direct conflict with that country.

“To put it bluntly, I would rather send bullets to Ukraine than American boys,” Johnson said. “My son is going to begin at the Naval Academy this fall. This is a live-fire exercise for me, as it is for so many American families. This is not a game. It’s not a joke. We can’t play politics with this.”

McCarthy removal

Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz used the motion to vacate last October to remove McCarthy from the role following a floor vote. That caused weeks of internal turmoil and public embarrassment for House Republicans as they struggled to coalesce around a candidate who could win the support needed on the floor.

Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Good, chairman of the far-right Freedom Caucus, said Thursday that lawmakers frustrated with Johnson should wait until after the November elections before debating leadership changes.

“I think the speaker guarantees himself that there will be a contest for the speaker, I hope in November,” Good said. “I think that’s the wise course when you’re sitting at a 216-to-213 margin. But, obviously, I can’t predict what the other members will or won’t do.”

Johnson should have used “leverage points” like the annual defense authorization bill, the annual government funding bills and Ukraine aid to force the Democratic- controlled Senate to take up a stalled House GOP border security bill, he said.

Good also reiterated he is not backing the motion to vacate that Greene filed in March and Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie decided to support this week after calling on Johnson to resign.

The increased attention on the motion to vacate comes as Johnson looks toward a Saturday vote on $95 billion in assistance for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan that would be approved in three separate bills.

The House is expected to vote on a separate bill wrapping together a ban on the social media app TikTok unless it’s sold by Chinese owner ByteDance and sanctions against Iran, Russia and China.

If all four of those bills pass the House, they’re likely to be wrapped together in one package before being sent to the Senate.

The House might take a separate vote on a border security measure that reinstates Trump-era immigration policies, though that didn’t appear to have the votes needed to move to the U.S. Senate.

Democrats warm to GOP leadership

Numerous Democrats indicated in interviews Thursday that they’re willing to help House GOP leaders move past the procedural hurdle of approving a rule in order to move onto final votes on the emergency aid.

Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin said it’s “paramount” that Congress pass assistance for Ukraine after months of inaction and “dislodge all of the dysfunction over on the GOP side.”

“We want to be able to get aid to our allies as quickly as possible and we want to try to stabilize a very chaotic and dysfunctional political environment that has been unleashed on us,” Raskin said.

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said she’s reached a point where she’s fine breaking up aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan into three bills if that’s what it takes to get the legislation through the divided Congress.

“We have to all have the courage to take risks, to spend political capital and to make sure that we can literally save democracy and thousands of people from walking to their doom,” she said.

The U.S. Senate approved one bill that included all the aid in February on a 70-29 vote, but that has been stuck in the House ever since as Johnson sought a path forward that was acceptable for most of his conference.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat and former House majority leader, said he expects his party to back the rule and the bills, providing broadly bipartisan votes.

“We want this to pass,” Hoyer said. “We think it needs to pass and we think it needs to pass now. And I believe you will see the support of efforts that accomplish that.”

Democrats would also likely back changing the single-member motion to vacate since it’s “destabilizing demonstrably to the House of Representatives,” Hoyer said.

Hoyer said such a change to House rules should be taken up on its own, but he said Democrats might not object to it being approved within a rule, should House GOP leaders take that path.

“You know, one of the things about democracy is you elect a leader and that leader has a term, in this case two years,” Hoyer said. “And to constantly be subjecting a leader to second guessing every day … is bad for the House, bad for the American people.”

Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle said Johnson deserves credit for the comments made during a Wednesday press conference about doing what’s best and not thinking about how it might affect his role as speaker.

“From 1945 until Donald Trump took over the Republican Party, it has always been the bipartisan consensus foreign policy of the United States that we stand up against Soviet and now Russian aggression, that we lead the Trans-Atlantic alliance, that we are the biggest supporters of NATO and the leaders of NATO,” Boyle said.

After Trump won the 2016 presidential election, Boyle said the former president “suddenly changed the base of that party almost overnight from that position to one that is much more isolationist.”

U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson of Louisiana, center, listens as Rep. Mike McCaul of Texas, left, speaks during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 16, 2024 in Washington, D.C. Also pictured is House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, right (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans unveiled three bills Wednesday that would provide $95 billion overall in assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, instead of voting on a similar bipartisan Senate-approved package that’s been waiting around for months.

The Ukraine bill would provide $60.84 billion, the Israel bill would appropriate $26.38 billion and the Indo-Pacific bill would approve $8.12 billion in assistance, according to a House GOP summary of the legislation.

President Joe Biden quickly threw his support behind the legislation, which could be voted on as early as Saturday, writing in a statement that Congress  “must pass” the three bills as soon as possible.

“Israel is facing unprecedented attacks from Iran, and Ukraine is facing continued bombardment from Russia that has intensified dramatically in the last month,” he wrote.

Biden added that he would sign the bills “immediately to send a message to the world: We stand with our friends, and we won’t let Iran or Russia succeed.”

Votes are forecast on separate measures on a TikTok ban and border security policy, though details were not yet disclosed early Wednesday afternoon.

House Republican leaders hope to vote on funding for each nation or region separately Saturday as well as amendments, though numerous House Republicans have vowed to vote against the rule that sets up debate on the bills.

Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be on recess next week, adding a time crunch to the debate within the House GOP Conference.

Democrats could bail out Republicans by voting to approve the rule, though that’s not typically how the House works. The majority party, currently the GOP, is expected to carry the rule vote on its own, regardless of whether the bill that follows is bipartisan.

The question of aid to Israel gained urgency in Congress following attacks by Iran on that nation last weekend and vows by Israel to retaliate, although it’s not yet clear how. Israel is also engaged in a war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, sent a message to members Wednesday morning announcing the three foreign assistance bills would be released and committing to some amendment votes.

“After significant Member feedback and discussion, the House Rules Committee will be posting soon today the text of three bills that will fund America’s national security interests and allies in Israel, the Indo-Pacific, and Ukraine, including a loan structure for aid, and enhanced strategy and accountability,” Johnson wrote.

The House plans to vote on the package Saturday evening, ensuring “time for a robust amendment process,” Johnson wrote.

TikTok, immigration and a motion to vacate

The House will also take votes on a border security bill as well as a separate package that includes a bill banning the social media site TikTok unless it’s sold by Chinese owner ByteDance, Johnson wrote.

The House approved the TikTok bill in mid-March, but it’s been held up in the Senate ever since as that chamber debates whether to take it up. That bill will now be rolled into a package with “sanctions and other measures to confront Russia, China, and Iran,” he wrote.

Johnson’s decision to move forward with aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan comes amid increasing frustration from especially conservative members of the House Republican Conference, two of whom are calling for him to resign or face a vote that could remove him from the leadership post.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a so-called motion to vacate resolution in March that would oust Johnson from his post if approved. She struggled to find support among her colleagues until Tuesday, when Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie called for Johnson to resign in a closed-door meeting, then said he’d supported the resolution.

Other far-right members have expressed frustration with Johnson’s decision to advance the supplemental spending bills, including Pennsylvania’s Scott Perry, who has repeatedly criticized Johnson on social media for not pressing harder for a House GOP border security bill. Republicans have been sharply critical of the Biden administration immigration policy.

“While we always want to help our allies, what are we doing for the American Citizens?” Perry wrote in one of many posts.

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, wrote in a statement releasing the foreign aid bills that “if we don’t help our friends in time of need, soon enough, we won’t have any friends at all.”

“Equivocating is not an option, and each bill will be given distinct attention and consideration,” Cole wrote. “I look forward to supporting them and providing our allies and partners with the tools they need to defend themselves. America must stand firmly on the side of freedom.”

Top Democrat lends support

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the spending committee, wrote in a statement that she will support the three assistance bills.

“We cannot retreat from the world stage under the guise of putting ‘America First,’” DeLauro wrote. “We put America first by demonstrating the power of American leadership — that we have the strength, resolve, and heart to fight for the most vulnerable people, protect their freedom, and preserve their dignity. I urge swift passage of these bills.”

The House GOP bills, she wrote, “mirror the Senate-passed package and include support for Ukraine against Russian aggression; Israel in its war against Iran and its proxies, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis; and our Indo-Pacific partners against an adversarial China.”

How is the aid money divided up?

The Ukraine bill would appropriate nearly $48 billion to the U.S. Defense Department to provide Ukraine with training and equipment, to replenish U.S. stockpiles that have been shipped to Ukraine and to support U.S. armed forces in the region, according to a summary of the bill from House Democrats.

The U.S. State Department would receive $9.5 billion in “forgivable loans for vital economic and budgetary support for Ukraine’s energy sector and other infrastructure needs” and $2 billion in security assistance for Ukraine and other allies, according to the Democratic summary.

The U.S. Energy Department would receive nearly $250 million to address any potential nuclear or radiological incidents.

Funding for Israel would be split between the U.S. departments of Defense, Homeland Security and State.

Defense would get $13 billion for replenishing U.S. stockpiles sent to Israel, U.S. Central Command operations and for the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Iron Beam defense systems, according to Democrats’ summary.

The State Department would receive $9.15 billion for humanitarian assistance in Gaza and other locations and $3.6 billion in security assistance for Israel as well as other Middle Eastern partners.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency, housed within DHS, would receive $400 million for the nonprofit security grant program.

That bill prohibits U.S. funding from going to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, according to the GOP summary.

The third bill, with funding for the Indo-Pacific region, would provide the U.S. Defense Department with $5.6 billion for “integrated deterrence” and for the submarine industrial base, according to Democrats’ summary.

Another $281.9 million would go to the U.S. Navy for dry dock construction.

The State Department would receive $2 billion in foreign military financing for U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region.

Text of the 49-page Ukraine bill is here, the 25-page Israel bill is here and the 15-page Indo-Pacific bill is here.

Senate version of aid package

The Senate voted 70-29 in mid-February to approve a $95 billion emergency spending bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, with much of that funding going directly to the U.S. departments of Defense, Energy and State. The weapons or humanitarian assistance would then be distributed to the respective countries.

Much of that Senate package resembles the measures rolled out by Johnson on Wednesday.

Ukraine would have received about $60 billion, Israel $14 billion and the Indo-Pacific $4.8 billion. The package also included the bipartisan Fentanyl Eradication and Narcotics Deterrence, or the FEND Off Fentanyl Act.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, have repeatedly called on House GOP leaders to put that package on the floor for a vote.

Johnson has spent the intervening two months taking the pulse of his lawmakers and plotting a path forward that began to take shape earlier this week.

‘The entire world is waiting’

Schumer said Wednesday morning from the Senate floor that he was waiting to see what exactly the House bills would propose in terms of funding and what makes it out of the House chamber before deciding what the Senate will do.

“The entire world is waiting to see what House Republicans will do about aid to Ukraine, aid to Israel, humanitarian assistance and aid to the Indo-Pacific,” Schumer said.

“(Russian leader Vladimir) Putin is watching very closely to see if America will step up and show strength or slink away from a friend in need.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin testified before the House Defense spending panel on Wednesday morning the delay approving aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan “sends a terrible signal to our allies and partners.”

Ukraine losing the war to Russia would have significant ramifications for NATO allies in Europe and for the United States, he said.

“We all know that Putin won’t stop in Ukraine. This will continue. And, you know, our allies on the Eastern Front there are very, very concerned about that,” Austin said. “It will also signal to other autocrats around the globe that the United States is not a reliable partner. And so all the alliances and partnerships that we’ve worked hard to develop over the years will be in question.”

Kentucky Republican U.S. Rep Thomas Massie speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky called on U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson to resign during a closed-door meeting of GOP lawmakers on Tuesday, throwing more uncertainty into that chamber just months before the November elections.

Massie told reporters after the meeting and just before a Johnson press conference he believed the votes exist to remove Johnson as speaker when a vote is called. He didn’t say when that would happen or who he thinks could secure the votes needed to become speaker.

“The motion will get called,” Massie said, referring to a floor vote on Johnson. “And then he’s going to lose more votes than Kevin McCarthy. And I have told him this in private, like weeks ago.”

Johnson, a Louisiana Republican who was unanimously elected to the leadership post in October after a small group of GOP lawmakers ousted former Speaker McCarthy, rejected Massie’s call to quit, as did several Republicans.

“I am not resigning. And it is, in my view, an absurd notion that someone would bring a vacate motion,” Johnson said “We’re simply here trying to do our job.”

Removing Johnson from the leadership position less than six months into his tenure comes shortly after the House passed two government funding packages on broadly bipartisan votes in March and just as the House prepares to vote on emergency aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan later this week.

Israel is engaged in a war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip and was attacked by Iran over the weekend, while Ukraine continues to defend itself from a Russian invasion.

Johnson, speaking at a press conference during which he only took one question, said removing him as speaker would throw a wrench into a chamber that needs “steady hands at the wheel” to address domestic and global issues.

“Look, I regard myself as a wartime speaker. I mean, in a literal sense,” Johnson said. “I knew that when I took the gavel. I didn’t anticipate that this would be an easy path.”

Johnson repeated comments from former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who he said posted on his social media that “this is the hardest challenge that’s faced a speaker probably in the history of the country.”

“He said, arguably, maybe comparable to the Civil War, but maybe worse,” Johnson said, referring to the period between 1861 and 1865 when Southern states seceded from the United States in an attempt to preserve slavery of Black people. The death toll from the war is estimated at 620,000.

Johnson then spoke about the narrow margin that GOP leaders have in the House, which currently holds 218 Republicans and 213 Democrats.

“A single-vote margin at a difficult time when the nation is terribly divided,” Johnson said. “The way we get through that is we show unity and we explain how we have answers to all these great challenges.”

Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president this fall, is on trial in a New York state criminal courtroom facing charges of falsifying business records. Trump would oppose President Joe Biden this fall in what has been so far a bitter campaign.

Johnson appeared with Trump at Florida’s Mar-a-Lago on Friday and appeared to get the backing of the former president, possibly insulating him from efforts to remove him as speaker.

Greene motion to vacate

Georgia Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene filed a motion to vacate the speaker post in March, just before the House left on a two-week break.

Unlike the motion to vacate that Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz filed against McCarthy last fall, this one was not intended to be “privileged,” meaning that it didn’t force a vote within two days. Greene has not said when she may push for a floor vote.

Massie said that Johnson’s actions as speaker, including advancing bipartisan bills that have been able to move through the Democratically controlled Senate and garner Biden’s signature, are key reasons he wants to remove him from power.

Massie said that Johnson should publicly announce that he would resign once the conference decides on a successor, or that he should announce a future date for his resignation. That would allow the House GOP Conference to have a smooth transition without the weeks of stalemate and drama that marked the ousting of McCarthy.

Border security demands from GOP

South Carolina GOP Rep. Ralph Norman said following the House Republican meeting that he respects Massie, but disagrees with his actions.

“The last thing this country needs is to throw a speaker out, even though I disagree with what he’s done,” Norman said. “I wouldn’t put the country through that, so I’m against that.”

Numerous House Republican lawmakers in the meeting, Norman said, made it clear to Johnson that something must be done to address border security.

Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves said following the meeting he doesn’t believe a floor vote on the motion to vacate Johnson from the speaker’s office is imminent.

“I don’t think that the threat is really real at this point just because you don’t have an alternative,” Graves said. “You have a loosely affiliated coalition government at this point. You’re not going to get a majority of votes for any new person. And for that reason, I don’t think they’re going to go through with it at this point.”

House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, said he’s “not too worried about Speaker Johnson,” despite Massie’s calls for resignation.

A pro-Trump mob breaks into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger sought to ease concerns from the lawmakers in charge of his agency’s budget on Wednesday, saying the department is preparing for major upcoming events — including another potential Jan. 6 — by trying to grow the size of its force and overhauling its intelligence gathering activities.

During an hour-long hearing in front of the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, Manger argued the agency is far better positioned than in the past to address the safety of members both in the Capitol complex and at their residences, though at one point he said USCP’s “resources are strained.”

Manger also noted USCP has fallen behind and is trying to enhance protection for House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and Senate Speaker pro tempore Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, since they are second and third in the line of presidential succession, respectively.

The U.S. Secretary of State, who sits fourth in the line of succession below both those lawmakers, has a security detail three times larger than anything USCP provides, Manger told the committee.

“We know we’ve got to expand the protection for the individuals that are in the line of succession,” he said. “We can’t just go back to the days when we said, ‘Well, we’ll just follow them around and we’ll make sure they’re well protected wherever they are,’ because their homes, their families are at risk.”

Improvements since insurrection

Several members of the panel pressed Manger about how exactly the agency has updated its thinking, staffing and tactics since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol building by pro-Trump rioters. Dozens of police officers were injured in that attack and two law enforcement officers died as a result of that day.

The insurrection disrupted Congress certifying the Electoral College votes to affirm President Joe Biden’s win in the election. That was the first time the United States didn’t have a peaceful transition of power.

Votes must be certified again by Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, following this November’s presidential election.

Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley asked Manger during the hearing about USCP’s response plan for a threat that would require additional police officers to come in quickly.

Manger said the department has already started preparing for the “election, the next January 6, the inauguration.”

“We already have committed hundreds of police officers from allied organizations. And by the time we get to those dates, we could have thousands of trained law enforcement officers… So the cavalry will be here on site for all the big events.”

Manger said USCP is able to maintain relationships with other law enforcement agencies, in part, because those other agencies are reimbursed for helping.

In addition to keeping that funding stream available, USCP needs the spending panel to preserve retention bonuses to try to reduce attrition.

“We need for people to stay for the conventions, for the election, for the next January 6, for the inauguration and beyond,” Manger said, implying retention bonuses will help to do that.

Anticipating a threat

One of the largest criticisms of USCP following the Jan. 6 attack was that its intelligence operation failed to realize the extent of the threat to the Capitol and the lawmakers inside, an issue that Manger said has been addressed in the last three years.

“It’s night and day,” he said.

“We have U.S. Capitol Police employees that are sitting in joint operation centers, that are sitting in other agencies, so that we immediately get that information,” he testified. “But we’re also doing two things that weren’t being done very well before, in my view.”

USCP is now analyzing intelligence to see what threats are credible and sharing those with its own officers on a daily basis.

The department also has a new working relationship with the National Guard, including Manger’s ability to call up troops without needing to wait on anyone else’s approval, though he seemed wary of doing that during a crisis.

“I will tell you that the National Guard is terrific,” Manger said. “But what I really need is trained, equipped law enforcement officers, who are trained in crowd control, civil disturbance. And, again, if we need it, we will have thousands of those on our campus.”

Outside of responding to possibly large-scale attacks on Congress, USCP should expand its presence at airports in the Washington, D.C. area, according to the panel’s ranking member Adriano Espaillat, a New York Democrat.

Lawmakers traveling through airports, Espaillat said, “are subject to threats.”

“I think there needs to be a greater presence in the airport,” he said.

Manger said USCP tries to “accommodate” all lawmakers who request police escorts through airports and noted it has people at the three main airports in the Washington, D.C., region.

Police budget

The fiscal 2025 budget request for Capitol Police proposes that Congress approve $636.5 million for salaries and $263.8 million for general expenses.

USCP’s current funding bill, approved in March, provides the agency with a total spending level of $791.5 million, with $588.6 million of that dedicated to salaries and $202.8 million for general expenses.

The House and Senate Appropriations committees will likely release their respective spending bills in the late spring or early summer. The spending process is unlikely to wrap up before Election Day.

Former President Donald Trump, the presumed 2024 Republican nominee for president, said in a video on Monday that abortion law should be set by the states. Trump is shown speaking May 28, 2022 in Casper, Wyoming. (Chet Strange/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced a shift in his views on abortion laws Monday, releasing a video advocating for state legislatures to make those decisions, not Congress — and was immediately met with strong criticism from an influential anti-abortion group that said it should remain a national debate.

“My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote, or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land. In this case, the law of the state,” Trump said in a nearly five-minute video he posted to social media.

“Many states will be different, many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that’s what they will be,” he added. “At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. You must follow your heart, or in many cases your religion or your faith.”

Trump said he supports exceptions to abortion bans to allow pregnancy terminations in cases of rape, incest and the life of the pregnant patient.

Trump’s video is a departure from comments he’s made on the campaign trail that he would support a 16-week nationwide ban.

The shift in his policy platform less than seven months before Election Day could be viewed as an effort by Trump to appeal to centrist Republicans and swing voters, especially women, as Democrats have sought to rally supporters behind reproductive rights.

In the last two years, voters in a number of states have approved ballot questions that bolstered support for abortion access, including those in Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio.

Several other states, including Arizona and Florida, are likely to have abortion access questions on this November’s ballot, alongside the choice for president and representation in both chambers of Congress.

President Joe Biden wrote in a statement released by his reelection campaign that “Trump once said women must be punished for seeking reproductive health care — and he’s gotten his wish.”

“Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, forced to go to court to seek permission for the medical attention they need, and left to travel hundreds of miles for health care,” Biden wrote.

“Because of Donald Trump, one in three women in America already live under extreme and dangerous bans that put their lives at risk and threaten doctors with prosecution for doing their jobs,” Biden added. “And that is only going to get worse.”

‘Deeply disappointed’

Anti-abortion organizations immediately expressed frustration with Trump’s most recent campaign stance, while reproductive rights organizations questioned its truthfulness.

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser wrote in a statement the organization is “deeply disappointed in President Trump’s position” and reiterated the Supreme Court’s “Dobbs decision clearly allows both states and Congress to act.”

“Saying the issue is ‘back to the states’ cedes the national debate to the Democrats who are working relentlessly to enact legislation mandating abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy,” Dannenfelser wrote. “If successful, they will wipe out states’ rights.”

South Carolina Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham also broke with Trump on the issue, writing in a statement that “the pro-life movement has always been about the wellbeing of the unborn child — not geography.”

Graham, ranking member on the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would continue to press for a 15-week nationwide abortion ban with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the pregnant patient.

Until he can garner the votes to move that bill through Congress, Graham wrote, he would press for a law “requiring abortion providers to administer anesthesia to an unborn child at fifteen weeks.”

Trump rebuked Dannenfelser and Graham later Monday afternoon, writing on social media that they “should study the 10th Amendment and States’ Rights. When they do, they should proudly get on with helping Republicans to WIN ELECTIONS, rather than making it impossible for them to do so!”

Trump wrote in another post: “I blame myself for Lindsey Graham, because the only reason he won in the Great State of South Carolina is because I Endorsed him!”

In another post, Trump wrote: “We cannot let our Country suffer any further damage by losing Elections on an issue that should always have been decided by the States, and now will be!”

Abortion rights supporters were highly critical. Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju wrote in a statement that she didn’t believe Trump’s comments in the video, calling him a “liar.”

“He knows that publicly supporting bans loses voters, so he deployed dangerous disinformation about abortion in order to distract from the truth about what he will do if elected,” Timmaraju wrote.

“He’s responsible for the harm and chaos caused by Republicans’ abortion bans in the states, and all he is saying is that he wants more of it,” Timmaraju added. “The stakes couldn’t be higher, and we need to elect reproductive freedom majorities in Congress and send President Biden and Vice President Harris back to the White House to restore the federal right to abortion and expand access.”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, cast doubt that Trump would hold the stance for any length of time, writing in a statement, “Let’s wait a few weeks and see what his new position will be.”

​​Biden-Harris 2024 Campaign Manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said on a call with reporters Monday afternoon that Trump’s video shows “his support for those extreme bans and made clear he will support these bans in all 50 states.”

“Make no mistake, leaving it to the states is an endorsement of the cruel and dangerous abortion bans across the country made possible only by Donald Trump,” Rodriguez said.

The abortion bans currently in place in Republican states sometimes exclude exceptions for rape and incest, and can take effect before a woman knows she’s pregnant, Rodriguez said.

Abortion decision

Trump was president before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to abortion it established in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case and reaffirmed in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling.

The conservative justices on the court wrote in their ruling ending nationwide protections that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

That would include Congress, should lawmakers choose to pursue a nationwide law. Trump didn’t say in the video if he would veto such a bill or work to prevent it from reaching his desk, in the event he is reelected president and has a Republican-controlled Congress.

In the video, Trump personally thanked the conservative justices on the Supreme Court who ended the right to an abortion and commented that he was “proudly the person who was responsible” for that ruling.

Trump didn’t comment specifically in the video about whether he would seek to enforce an 1873 anti-obscenity law that many anti-abortion advocates say could ban the mailing of medication abortion.

The Comstock Act, as it’s called, came up at the U.S. Supreme Court in late March when the justices heard oral arguments over access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions.

That law hasn’t been enforced in decades but it bars the mailing of “Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.”

Trump and IVF

Trump also addressed access to in vitro fertilization in his video, saying the Republican Party “wants to make it easier for mothers and families to have babies, not harder.”

“That includes supporting the availability of fertility treatments, like IVF, in every state in America,” Trump said, later adding he “strongly supports the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”

Trump thanked lawmakers in Alabama for enacting civil and criminal protections for IVF clinics so they could resume treatments after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos constituted children.

While many of the IVF clinics in the state restarted their work after the new law was put in place, a Mobile, Alabama, IVF clinic said it will cease at the end of the year due to a lawsuit over the process.

“Today I’m pleased that the Alabama Legislature has acted very quickly and passed legislation that preserves the availability of IVF in Alabama,” Trump said. “They really did a great and fast job.”

Trump said that the GOP “should always be on the side of the miracle of life and the side of mothers, fathers and their beautiful babies. And that’s what we are.”

“IVF is an important part of that and our great Republican Party will always be with you in your quest for the ultimate joy in life,” Trump said.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have blocked two bills from moving forward that would have addressed access to IVF, following the questions about the process in Alabama.

Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi in late February blocked efforts by Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth to pass a bill that would have implemented nationwide protections of IVF patients and health care providers.

That legislation would have barred limitations on “assisted reproductive technology services” that are “more burdensome than limitations or requirements imposed on medically comparable procedures, do not significantly advance reproductive health or the safety of such services and unduly restrict access to such services.”

In mid-March, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford blocked Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray from quickly passing legislation that would have expanded access to fertility treatments for military members and veterans.

The bill, titled the Veteran Families Health Services Act, would have allowed troops to freeze their eggs or sperm before shipping out to a combat zone or a hazardous duty assignment. It would also have broadened access to VA’s adoption services.

Erin Hawley, a Missouri attorney representing the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, speaks to the media as she departs the Supreme Court following oral arguments in the case of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on March 26, 2024, in Washington, DC. The case bears on access to mifepristone, a commonly used abortion medication (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — An anti-obscenity law enacted in 1873 that hasn’t been enforced in decades shot to the forefront of the nation’s abortion debate in the past week thanks to two U.S. Supreme Court justices, amid expectations a future Republican president would use the law to order a nationwide ban on medication abortion.

The Comstock Act, which prohibited the mailing of anatomy textbooks and boxing photographs as well as contraceptives, drew fresh attention after Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas during March 26 oral arguments seemed to suggest the law would block the mailing of mifepristone.

Legal experts and a medical historian interviewed by States Newsroom said enforcing the law would be possible since it’s still on the books. But one legal expert noted it may be challenging to prosecute only the sections on abortion while ignoring those that bar sending anything deemed to have an “indecent or immoral use.”

The law, they said, also stems from a time when medical understanding and terminology around pregnancy was vastly different than today, though that’s unlikely to deter those who see the Comstock Act as a path to curtailing or ending abortion access.

Trying to fend off any possibility, a few Democrats in Congress hope to repeal the statute ahead of another Republican presidency — a difficult task amid divided government.

Sarah​​​​ Perry, senior legal fellow for the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, said a future Republican attorney general could prosecute any manufacturer that ships mifepristone through the U.S. Postal Service — or a private company contracting with USPS.

“The reason we don’t see more involvement with Comstock in federal litigation is simply because you have to have a Department of Justice with the political will to actually go out and to enforce it, and to charge people with those types of violations,” Perry said.

Abortion medication suit

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, which are currently FDA-approved for use up to 10 weeks gestation. The two-drug regimen accounts for about 63% of abortions nationwide, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute.

The pharmaceutical is at the center of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Months of litigation began when anti-abortion medical organizations filed a lawsuit in November 2022 asking the federal courts to either severely restrict or end access to the drug.

The Comstock Act bars more than just sending abortion pharmaceuticals and reigniting enforcement of its various provisions could be complicated, according to Mary Ziegler, Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at UC Davis School of Law.

“If you look at the statute, very few words in it are about abortion. Almost all of it is about stuff having to do with sex,” Ziegler said. “So if you’re going to revive the Comstock Act, that’s part of the Pandora’s Box you’re opening.”

The first line of the law, for example, bans mailing “Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance.”

One of the lines addressing abortion says the statute bans mailing “Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.”

Ziegler said she wasn’t sure how a court today would interpret what would be “for any indecent or immoral use.”

The lawmakers in Congress who voted to approve the Comstock Act, which was enacted less than a decade after the end of the Civil War, weren’t especially concerned with “protecting fetal life or rights,” Ziegler said.

“It was really about sex, and abortion came into it the same way contraception did,” she said. “And the people who passed the law didn’t really distinguish the two.”

Anthony Comstock, who advocated for the law, used to call “people who sold contraceptives, abortionists, even though they didn’t perform abortions, because to him there really wasn’t much of a difference,” Ziegler said.

The law’s full title is “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use.”

Differences in legal interpretations

While the Biden administration has issued a legal opinion saying the Comstock Act doesn’t apply when the “sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully,” a future GOP president and the legal teams within that administration could feel quite differently. Former President Donald Trump has clinched the Republican presidential nomination.

The Biden administration’s legal interpretation of the Comstock Act, Perry said, “doesn’t really pass the straight face test, particularly the plain reading of the text itself for which ‘intent’ does not appear.”

Perry and Thomas Jipping, a fellow Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow, wrote in a February 2023 report that the Biden Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion “wants Americans to believe that a law enacted as part of the national pro-life legislative movement and championed by an aggressive and uncompromising anti-vice crusader is today, with no change in its language, entirely unenforceable for its intended purpose.”

“The OLC wants Americans to ignore what they can read for themselves, that the statute has clear and unqualified language, and that Congress repeatedly demonstrated its intention to keep it that way,” the two wrote. “The OLC wants Americans to believe that while enacting the Comstock Act required Congress to act, rendering it inert and unenforceable could be accomplished by Congress failing to act at all.”

A Republican-controlled Justice Department could bring charges against the manufacturers of mifepristone unless those companies used entirely private transportation companies, Perry said.

“If they were seeking a private driver to deliver or a private delivery service to deliver, that’s legally permissible, but they cannot use the U.S. Postal Service or any common carrier that contracts with the U.S. Postal Service,” Perry said.

Some legal experts or judges could interpret the law as having a wider reach, Ziegler said.

“The statute’s written to be really broad,” she said. “So it’s not obvious to me that if you used a private carrier that it would be exempted. Again, if you assume the interpretation of the law that they have, which I don’t, but if you do, I don’t think it makes a difference if you have a private carrier.”

In that case, the law could mean no medication abortion at all as well as enforcement of the Comstock Act’s other provisions, Ziegler said.

The law was used in federal prosecution as recently as 2002, but that was for “obscene or lewd materials,” not for the mailing of anything having to do with abortions, Perry said.

Enforcement of the abortion sections of the law wasn’t allowed after the Supreme Court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, but that all changed two years ago when the court overturned that opinion, Perry said.

“The law essentially laid dormant for many years because of course in 1971 the birth control prohibition was eliminated and then in 1973 we were given Roe,” Perry said.

“So for all intents and purposes, the Supreme Court finding a right to abortion superseded what the Comstock Act actually said, because if there was an unfettered right to abortion, then there could not be congressional restriction on any tool, medication, or implement used to facilitate abortion,” said Perry.

The court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could lead to “renewed interest” in enforcing the Comstock Act, including comments made just last week by the two Supreme Court justices, she said.

What the justices said

Thomas and Alito brought up the Comstock Act during a case that will determine whether access to mifepristone stays the way it is now or reverts to what was in place before 2016.

Thomas asked the attorney representing Danco Laboratories LLC, manufacturer of the brand name of mifepristone called Mifeprex, if the Comstock Act applied to the company.

“The government, the solicitor general points out, would not be susceptible to a Comstock Act problem,” Thomas said. “But in your case, you would be, so how do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it, would violate the Comstock Act?”

Thomas said that his “problem” with aspects of the case was that Danco Laboratories is “private, and the statute doesn’t have the sort of safe harbor that you’re suggesting.”

“It is fairly broad and it specifically covers drugs such as yours,” Thomas said.

Danco lawyer Jessica Ellsworth responded that she disagreed that was “the correct interpretation of the statute.”

“We think that in order to address the correct interpretation, there would need to be a situation in which that issue was actually teed up,” Ellsworth said. “I don’t believe that this case presents an opportunity for this court to opine on the reach of the statute.”

Alito appeared to argue that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should have considered the Comstock Act before relaxing previous restrictions on use, allowing mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and sent to patients through the mail.

“It didn’t say anything about it. And this is a prominent provision,” Alito said. “It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated obscure law. They knew about it. Everybody in this field knew about it.”

Calls for repeal by Congress

Following the comments by the two justices, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush immediately called on Congress to repeal the law, a scenario that’s unlikely to happen given that Republicans control the U.S. House and Democrats the Senate.

“Enacted in 1873, it is a zombie statute, a dead law that the far-right is trying to reanimate,” Bush wrote on social media. “The anti-abortion movement wants to weaponize the Comstock Act as a quick route to a nationwide medication abortion ban. Not on our watch.”

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Tina Smith wrote in an op-ed published by The New York Times on April 2 that she would work with her colleagues to repeal the law, saying that neither the Supreme Court nor another Trump administration should be allowed to rely on it to ban access to medication abortion.

“Very few Republicans will admit to wanting to see a total, no-exceptions ban on abortion in all 50 states, but the Comstock Act could allow them to achieve that in effect, if not in so many words,” Smith wrote. “Americans deserve better. The Constitution demands better. And common sense dictates that we stop this outrageous backdoor ploy to eliminate abortion access in its tracks.”

Comstock Act origins

Ziegler said that “the Comstock Act passed at a time when the meaning of obscene was up for grabs” and that its namesake, Anthony Comstock, “was really anxious about people’s exposure to what he saw as pornography.”

Some of the prohibited items under the anti-obscenity law were things people today would still think of as pornography, but Comstock also didn’t approve of nudity in medical textbooks or art, literature with “risque humor,” or newspaper articles about people who died as the result of illegal abortions.

“He thought all of that was encouraging people to have sex they shouldn’t be having, either by being arousing or in the case of abortion or contraception, convincing them that they could have sex without pregnancy,” Ziegler said.

At various points in the law’s history, Ziegler said, it was used to target people discussing LGBTQ rights and against opponents of the law in a way that basically silenced political speech.

Even though it hasn’t been used in quite some time, Ziegler said, “it’s a very real possibility” a future Republican DOJ could seek to enforce the law with respect to abortion access.

“The only caveat, of course, is if that happened, the person being prosecuted would be right back in federal court saying, ‘Number one, this is not what the Comstock Act means and number two, the Comstock Act is unconstitutional,’” Ziegler said. “So the U.S. Supreme Court would eventually have to settle those questions.”

One question for the justices will have to be what the word abortion meant in the late 19th century.

“If you look at what the law in general said at the time, procuring abortion was only a problem if it was done intentionally, and if it was done with basically criminal intent, which excluded cases where someone’s life was at risk or health was at risk,” Ziegler said.

19th-century terminology

Mary Fissell, inaugural J. Mario Molina professor in the history of medicine at Johns Hopkins University and vice president of the American Association for the History of Medicine, said during the 19th century around the time the law was written the terms abortion and miscarriage were often used interchangeably and typically meant the same thing.

“Both of those terms describe a pregnancy that ended sooner than it should have done and did not result in what we would call a live birth,” Fissell said.

People and organizations that wanted to outlaw pregnancy termination often used the term “feticide,” as in fetal homicide, to advocate for laws banning or significantly restricting the practice, Fissell said.

“Doctors start calling it criminal abortion, to distinguish it from everyday abortion, which is just fetal loss,” she said. “And so it’s over time that these terms come to mean, sort of separate things. At that point, they are very much just used interchangeably.”

The way women and most doctors understood pregnancy more than 150 years ago was before and after “quickening,” the first time a woman felt the fetus move, which is typically sometime in the middle of the second trimester, Fissell said.

“Before quickening, ending a pregnancy was not a big deal. It was not even fully always understood as ending a pregnancy,” Fissell said. “I think sometimes that’s what a woman knew she was doing. Other times she was getting back a lost menstrual cycle.”

In the late 19th century many physicians practiced what’s now referred to as humoral medicine, in which they believed the body contained four humors or fluids that needed to be kept in balance in order for a person to stay healthy.

They believed the body contained black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm and that those four substances corresponded to being either hot or cold as well as wet or dry.

“Women’s bodies were cooler and wetter than men’s,” Fissell said of medical beliefs around that time. “That’s good because, they thought of it as analogous to agriculture, and a seed was planted in the womb. And we all know what happens if you plant a seed somewhere that’s too hot and dry. It doesn’t go well.”

“So it was good that women were cooler and wetter, but it meant they didn’t fully process their food in the same way,” she added, again referring to beliefs at the time. “And the excess, the leftover, had to be gotten rid of from the body and that was what menstruation was.”

Doctors and others at the time often sold products that were designed to help women get a regular period, including herbal combinations. But there are significant differences between how that was thought of around 1873 and now, Fissell said.

“From a long time before that, there had been a blurring between what we call contraception and abortion,” Fissell said. “It doesn’t make sense to us, but in their worldview, they were more connected in part because the same kind of plant that you might take to get your cycle back, you could also be ending a pregnancy.”

“So, you can imagine some of those same preparations that women were advised to take every month, and you won’t get pregnant,” she added. “We would biochemically analyze it very differently than the way they were understanding it.”

Fissell said that around the time the Comstock Act was written, women and doctors — not typically male lawmakers — held the knowledge about menstrual cycles and pregnancy. “I think the extent of ignorance cannot be overestimated.”

Democratic U.S. Sens. Jon Tester of Montana, left, and Sherrod Brown of Ohio, right, are seen as the chamber’s most vulnerable incumbent Democrats in 2024. In this photo, Brown, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee chairman, talks with committee member Tester during a hearing about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Capitol Hill on Dec. 15, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Political consultants and Beltway pollsters are setting up camp in purple states to join a towering battle for control of a narrowly split U.S. Senate, but come November, only the voters will make that choice.

The road to the majority in the upper chamber of Congress mostly runs through Arizona, Montana and Ohio, where candidates have already spent months pitching their accomplishments and plans. And while it’s still early, the presence of former President Donald Trump at the top of the ballot and Democrats’ stress on abortion rights both look likely to remain consequential through the summer and fall, political experts predict.

The struggle for control is also fluid and will likely remain that way until all the ballots are counted. The influential Cook Political Report with Amy Walter changed its rating for Nevada’s Senate contest on Wednesday, moving the state from “lean Democratic” to the toss-up category and increasing pressure on incumbent Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen, who will face the Republican nominee following a June primary.

J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said in an interview with States Newsroom that Democrats are playing defense in multiple states, though they will be on offense in Florida and Texas despite long odds.

“I haven’t been designating the Republicans as favorites to flip the chamber, but they do have an easier path to getting to a majority than the Democrats do,” Coleman said.

Republicans only need to pick up West Virginia to hold 50 seats in the Senate, which would put them in the majority should former Trump win election. Longtime Democratic moderate Sen. Joe Manchin III is retiring in red-leaning West Virginia.

GOP candidates winning any one of the three toss-up races in Arizona, Montana and Ohio would push Republicans up to at least a 51-seat majority as long as they hold onto all their other seats, Coleman said.

“With all that in mind, I would say this year the biggest goal of Democrats is going to be to limit their losses,” he said.

Jessica Taylor, U.S. Senate and governors editor at The Cook Political Report, said during an interview with States Newsroom that this year holds a “very unfavorable Senate map for Democrats.”

“The bottom line is that there is no room for error,” Taylor said. “So even if they win the presidency, they cannot lose any incumbents.”

During the 2020 campaign, Trump’s unpopularity dragged down some of the GOP Senate candidates, leading Republicans to lose control of the chamber, but the reverse could be true this year, Taylor said.

“Democrats have to grapple with the fact that Biden is even more unpopular than Trump was at this point,” she said. “And the question becomes, how much can Democratic incumbents outrun him, especially when you have them in states that (Trump) won twice.”

Trump won in Ohio and Montana in both 2016 and 2020, though he lost in Arizona in 2020 after winning the state four years prior. That could be bad news for Democrats in those Senate races.

“In 2016, every single Senate race went the same way as the presidential race did,” Taylor said. “And in 2020, the only state that deviated was Maine, which Susan Collins was able to win even as (President Joe) Biden did win the state.”

The Senate incumbents seeking reelection this year last faced voters in 2018, a midterm election year. Senate terms run for six years.

Open seat in Arizona

Arizona’s Senate race doesn’t include an incumbent after Kyrsten Sinema announced her retirement, leaving the field open ahead of the July 30 primary.

Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake are expected to advance to the general election, though there are numerous Republicans challenging Lake in the primary.

The winner of the general election race, Coleman said, will likely gain the support of the “John McCain-type Republicans, who aren’t too happy about having to vote for a Democrat, but they really don’t like how extreme Lake is.”

“It’s one of the things that was working against the Republicans in 2022, because they really should have retaken the Senate,” Coleman said. “But in some of those races, the candidates that Mitch McConnell would have liked, were not the same candidates that Trump liked.”

McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, and Trump have long had differences.

Gallego, a former U.S. Marine, has represented the state’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2015 after spending four years in the state legislature.

Lake mounted an unsuccessful campaign for governor in 2022, later claiming she lost due to fraud, but has opted not to defend herself in the defamation lawsuit filed by Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.

Lake posted on social media that she believed that by “participating in this lawsuit, it would only serve to legitimize this perversion of our legal system and allow bad actors to interfere in our upcoming election.”

Arizona Democratic Party Chairwoman Yolanda Bejarano said in an interview with States Newsroom that top issues voters are focused on this year are abortion access, immigration, water and democracy.

Voters, she said, aren’t likely to forget that Republicans in the Senate, urged on by Trump, blocked a bipartisan immigration and border security bill from moving forward. Sinema brokered that deal alongside Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy and Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford.

“Democrats put up, actually, a bipartisan plan, a border solution, and it was rejected, because Trump told his members of Congress that this would not help them in his election,” Bejarano said.

The Arizona Senate race is also likely to be influenced by a ballot question that could add abortion access to the state Constitution. The group leading the effort, Arizona for Abortion Access, said Tuesday it has collected more than 500,000 signatures, well above the required 383,923 ahead of a July deadline.

“Arizona currently bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. And what this would do, is it would guarantee the right to an abortion up until fetal viability,” Bejarano said, referring to a benchmark that is typically about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

“So yeah, I think this is a winning issue for us because Arizonans do not want the government interfering in those personal decisions,” she added.

The Arizona Republican Party did not return requests for an interview.

Tester defends Montana seat

In Montana, Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, will likely face former Navy SEAL Tim Sheehy, though Republican voters will make that decision during their June 4 primary.

Tester has represented the state in the U.S. Senate since he was first elected in 2006, defeating his Republican opponent by a margin of just over 3,500 votes. Montana voters reelected him in 2012 by providing him 18,000 more votes than his GOP opponent and in 2018 by about the same margin.

Sheehy is one of several Republican Senate candidates with significant wealth running this election cycle, a feature that could help or hamstring him with voters, Taylor said.

“What Republicans have turned to this time is they have a lot of wealthy candidates that are running and they’re able to self-finance their races,” Taylor said. “So that does give them an advantage.”

Eric Hovde, who is expected to clinch the Republican nomination in Wisconsin, and David McCormick, who is likely to win Pennsylvania’s GOP primary later this month given that he’s the only name on the ballot, are among the wealthier Republicans running this cycle, she said.

In Wisconsin, Republicans hope to defeat Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, who won in 2018 with 55.4% of the vote. In Pennsylvania, they are targeting Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, who won six years ago with 55.7%.

Both states are rated as lean Democratic by The Cook Political Report.

The wealth of the Republicans could become a “double-edged sword” for those candidates, Taylor said.

“That’s just where I think we have to wait and see which wins out — partisanship or the candidate quality,” Taylor said. “And we saw, certainly in 2022, the candidate quality mattered, but that was during a midterm year, not during a presidential year.”

Montana reproductive rights organizations are also moving forward with putting a question directly before voters that could enshrine abortion access in the state’s Constitution, an issue that may drive more voters to the polls in November.

Democrats believe abortion rights are a winning issue for them in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That theory has been supported by voters approving ballot questions in favor of abortion rights in several states during the last two years, including Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio.

Brawl in the Buckeye State

In Ohio, Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, chair of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and Bernie Moreno, who won the Republican primary in mid-March, will compete for voters’ support during the general election this November.

Brown won his first race for U.S. Senate in 2006 with 56% of the vote. Buckeye State residents reelected him in 2012 with 50.7% of the vote and again in 2018 with 53.4% of the vote.

Ohio is the “most vulnerable” state on the map for Democrats, according to Taylor’s analysis, though she said Moreno is still a somewhat unknown candidate who will need to prove himself to voters.

All three of the GOP candidates in the toss-up states of Arizona, Montana and Ohio have endorsements from Trump, a feature they’re likely to tout on the campaign trail, but that Democrats could use to paint them as too partisan for swing voters.

Nevada moves to toss-up

Nevada joined the other three states on Wednesday as a toss-up race, according to the Cook Political Report, though Sabato’s Crystal Ball continues to categorize the state as “leans Democratic.”

The change in ratings from CPR puts more pressure on Democrats and Rosen to hold the line, while offering Republicans the possibility to have an even larger Senate majority.

Taylor wrote in the ratings change that “ultimately we are moving this race because of the unique forces at play in Nevada.”

“A combination of a newer electorate that Rosen must win over, Biden’s lagging numbers, and the unique post-COVID economic hangover in Nevada make this race a Toss Up,” she wrote

The Cook Political Report would “would certainly reassess our rating,” if  Army veteran Sam Brown doesn’t win the GOP primary to challenge Rosen in the general election.

At the moment, Taylor wrote, the “problems Democrats have in Arizona, especially on the issue of immigration and with lagging Latino voters, are similar in Nevada, though even Republicans are skeptical of polls that show them winning a majority of Hispanic voters.”

“Nonetheless, Republicans caution that the turnout machine the late Sen. Harry Reid built in the Silver State is still alive and well and will be active for Biden and especially Rosen, who was the former Senate majority leader’s protege,” Taylor added.

Democrats won the state in both the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests, but not by much. Hillary Clinton won by more than 27,000 votes in 2016 and Biden won in 2020 by more than 33,500 votes.

Rosen won her first term in the Senate in 2018 by a margin of nearly 49,000 more votes than her Republican opponent.

This year’s primary election on June 11 will determine exactly which Republican will challenge Rosen in the general election.

A fluid Senate outlook

Other states could come into play the closer voters come to Election Day, including bright-blue Maryland moving towards Republicans with the surprise entry of an ex-governor, as Florida and Texas possibly inch a bit closer to Democratic control.

The more expensive media market in Texas and Florida could hamper Democratic efforts to pick up either of those seats, currently held by Ted Cruz and Rick Scott, according to Coleman.

“Eventually you could have the (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) or the Senate Majority PAC having to calculate, ‘Okay, well, do we spend more to shore up Tester and Brown, or do we want to go chase Texas?” Coleman said.

Scott, former governor of Florida, won his first term to the U.S. Senate in 2018 by defeating former Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who has since become the NASA administrator for the Biden administration. The two were separated by just 10,033 votes out of more than 8.1 million ballots cast.

This November, Scott will need to secure the support of more voters than former U.S. House Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, the Democratic nominee.

One complicating factor for Scott could be that voters will decide the future of abortion rights and the legality of recreational cannabis use for people over the age of 21 through two ballot questions.

The Florida state Supreme Court ruled Monday that those two questions could go before voters this November, while also saying the state’s six-week abortion ban could go into effect.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Maeve Coyle wrote in a statement released after the ruling that the “fight against these new restrictions on access to abortion will shine a brighter spotlight on Rick Scott’s long, dangerous record of supporting draconian abortion bans.”

“In November, Florida voters will stand up for women’s freedom to make their most personal medical decisions by rejecting this abortion ban and firing Rick Scott from the Senate,” Coyle wrote.

Maryland headache for Democrats

Deciding where to spend money could also produce complications for Democrats in Maryland, where Republican nominee and former Gov. Larry Hogan has polled well compared to the two top Democratic primary candidates.

Hogan’s current favorability could “force the Democrats to spend a bit more money in Maryland that they would probably want to spend in Ohio or Montana,” Coleman said.

The odds are long against Hogan, considering that Charles M. Mathias Jr. was the last Republican to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate from 1969 until 1987.

But a Washington Post-University of Maryland survey from early March showed voters favor Hogan by 49% over Democratic Rep. David Trone, who received 37%, and by 50% over Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks, who received 36%.

Taylor said she’s somewhat skeptical about a poll conducted this far out from Election Day, in part because 55% of respondents said they wanted to keep the U.S. Senate under Democratic control.

“Larry Hogan’s biggest problem is that he will have an R beside his name,” Taylor said. “I think voters ultimately look at a vote for governor and a vote for Senate very differently.”

Left to right, former D.C. Metropolitan Police officer Michael Fanone, Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges, former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, and former U.S. Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn are shown attending a hearing by the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol in the Cannon House Office Building on Oct. 13, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign on Monday called on voters to disavow violence as a viable part of this year’s campaign cycle, including comments made by his Republican opponent and former President Donald Trump.

Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Officer Daniel Hodges and Biden-Harris Communications Director Michael Tyler said during a press conference Americans must reject the way Trump has campaigned so far.

“I will start by saying simply that political violence has no place in the United States of America. It should never be acceptable,” Tyler said. “This is a conversation that should not even be necessary. In fact, it’s a conversation that even a decade ago would have been unrecognizable in our political discourse. But it’s not anymore.”

Trump’s campaign is recycling many of the themes of his unsuccessful bid for the White House four years ago that eventually led to a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump posting on social media over the weekend, showing Biden “hogtied and gagged in the back of a pickup truck,” is another example of how Trump chooses “to traffic in violence as he seeks to regain power,” Tyler said.

The Associated Press said in its report the video showed “the image of a hog-tied President Joe Biden painted on the tailgate of a passing truck.”

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesman, said in a written statement that, “Democrats and crazed lunatics have not only called for despicable violence against President Trump and his family, they are actually weaponizing the justice system against him.”

Trump faces 88 criminal charges in four cases, including for his role inciting violence on Jan. 6 based on false claims of election interference and a separate case regarding classified documents.

Trump traveling to Michigan, Wisconsin

The press conference was held inside the Democratic National Committee building in Washington, D.C., just ahead of Trump campaigning in Michigan and Wisconsin on Tuesday.

Gonell criticized Trump for embracing the people convicted of crimes for their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, whom he’s called “patriots” and “political prisoners.”

“His failure to denounce violence on Jan. 6 2021, is a slap in the face to every officer who put their life on the line that day,” Gonell said. “He doesn’t give a damn about us.”

Gonell said Trump has not called any of the police officers injured in that attack in the three years since his supporters marched from a rally he held near the White House to the Capitol, before attacking police, breaking into the building and ending the country’s history of peaceful transitions of power.

“For Trump, the violence is a weapon to get what he wants — power, revenge, retribution,” Gonell said.

Republicans cannot be depended on to defend the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law, since they have made excuses for Trump’s past behaviors, he said.

“Every single American should listen to what Trump is saying,” Gonell said. “He’s saying that he’s willing to do January 6 again. That’s frightening. And he must not be elected in November.”

Hodges rebuked Trump for “continuing to encourage political violence” within the United States.

“My fellow officers and I experienced that type of violence at the hands of a mob of MAGA extremists on January 6, all because they bought into Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen,” Hodges said.

Trump shouldn’t say that he supports law enforcement when he also chooses to “inflame and encourage political violence at every turn,” Hodges said.

“You can’t claim to be on our side and then promise pardons for the violent insurrectionists who assaulted me and my brave colleagues, and killed my fellow officers Brian Sicknick and Jeffrey Smith,” he said.

The District of Columbia’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ruled that Sicknick died of natural causes following the attack on the Capitol. The USCP said in a written statement in April 2021 that it accepted the findings but that they did “not change the fact Officer Sicknick died in the line of duty, courageously defending Congress and the Capitol.”

Smith died by suicide in the days after he was attacked by pro-Trump rioters on Jan. 6. The Department of Justice classified his death as having occurred in the line of duty.

The D.C. Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board came to the same conclusion, writing in a letter that “Officer Smith sustained a personal injury on January 6, 2021, while performing his duties and that his injury was the sole and direct cause of his death,” according to NBC News.

Recasting Jan. 6

During Monday’s press conference, Gonell rejected attempts by Trump and many of his supporters to rewrite or recast the events of Jan. 6 as nonviolent or simply a tour of the Capitol.

“We were being attacked. We were being crushed. Members of Congress were rushing to some of these areas to hide for refuge or escape the building,” Gonell said. “If it wasn’t for what we did on that day, I don’t think they would have made it out.”

Some of those members, he said, have “the audacity to tell me that nothing happened and if it did happen, it wasn’t as bad as it was.”

“But they know on January 6th who was culpable,” he added. “They know how fearful they were on that day. And if it wasn’t because of what we did, they wouldn’t have survived.”

Opposing protesters outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday are kept separated by fencing as U.S. Capitol Police and Supreme Court Police observe. The demonstrators held signs and chanted as the justices heard oral arguments over access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion (Ashley Murray/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The future of medication abortion access in the United States went in front of the U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday, where several justices appeared somewhat skeptical as anti-abortion organizations argued use of the pharmaceutical should be moved back to what was in place before 2016.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, speaking on behalf of the federal government, told the conservative-dominated court that those restrictions would be unnecessary due to the numerous reputable studies that have shown mifepristone to be safe and effective.

Prelogar also argued that conscience protections already in place at the federal level protect doctors and other health care providers who don’t want to participate in elective abortion or in treating complications that can sometimes arise from medication abortion.

“Only an exceptionally small number of women suffer the kinds of serious complications that could trigger any need for emergency treatment,” Prelogar said. “It’s speculative that any of those women would seek care from the two specific doctors who asserted conscience injuries. And even if that happened, federal conscience protections would guard against the injury the doctors face.”

Prelogar said there was no way to trace those two anti-abortion doctors’ concerns — cited in the case argued by Alliance Defending Freedom — about treating patients with complications from medication abortion to the changes the Food and Drug Administration approved in 2016 and 2021, which were at the center of the case before the Supreme Court.

Prelogar also said the anti-abortion legal organization that filed the original lawsuit hadn’t identified a situation where a doctor or health care provider opposed to abortion raised a conscience protection and then had that violated.

Medication abortion includes mifepristone as the first pharmaceutical and misoprostol as the second. The two-drug regimen accounted for about 63% of abortions within the United States in 2023, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute.

Questions about broad changes in access

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch — appointed to the court by former President Donald Trump — and Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Joe Biden — were among the members of the court who specifically asked about why conscience protections would or would not be an appropriate remedy to the anti-abortion doctors’ concerns about medication abortion.

“I’m worried that there is a significant mismatch in this case between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought,” Jackson said. “The obvious, common-sense remedy would be to provide them with an exemption that they don’t have to participate in this procedure.”

But, Jackson noted, the anti-abortion doctors were seeking changes in access to mifepristone for everyone in the United States.

“And I guess I’m just trying to understand how they could possibly be entitled to that, given the injury that they have alleged,” Jackson said.

Gorsuch appeared to express some criticism of the anti-abortion case as well, saying, “We have before us a handful of individuals who have asserted a conscience objection.”

“Normally, we would allow equitable relief to address them,” Gorsuch said. “Recently — and I think what Justice Jackson is alluding to — we’ve had, what one might call, a rash of universal injunctions or vacatures.”

“And this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action,” Gorsuch said.

Prelogar agreed there was a “profound mismatch,” though Erin Morrow Hawley argued on behalf of Alliance Defending Freedom and the anti-abortion doctors that conscience protections don’t go far enough.

“These are emergency situations,” Hawley said. “Respondent doctors don’t necessarily know until they scrub into that operating room whether this may or may not be abortion drug harm — it could be a miscarriage, it could be an ectopic pregnancy, or it could be an elective abortion.”

Doctors, Hawley said, “can’t waste precious moments” in those circumstances.

Ruling coming later this year

The Supreme Court’s opinion on the case, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, will likely arrive sometime early this summer in the middle of a bitter campaign for control of the White House and Congress in which the issue of reproductive rights is being stressed by Democrats.

The ruling will come about two years after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion that it first recognized in the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and reasserted in the 1992 Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision.

Reverting use of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, back to what was in place before the FDA began making changes in 2016 would lead to significant changes for doctors and patients:

• Mifepristone would be approved for up to seven weeks gestation, down from the current 10-week ceiling for use.
• Patients would go back to attending three, in-person doctor’s office appointments to complete the medication abortion process.
• The pharmaceutical could no longer be sent to patients through the mail.
• Only doctors would be able to prescribe mifepristone, removing the option for qualified healthcare providers like physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners to prescribe it.

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000, later updating prescribing guidelines in 2016 and again during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several major medical organizations — including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine — wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court ahead of oral arguments that “(f)ocus on the use of mifepristone for induced abortion disregards how similarly essential it is to the safe and effective treatment of miscarriage or early pregnancy loss.”

“Miscarriage is common,” the medical organizations wrote. “Of the roughly 5.5 million pregnancies estimated to occur in the United States each year, between 10% and 26% end in miscarriage. For the million or more patients who experience early pregnancy loss annually, mifepristone is often a critical component of care.”

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court likely will not issue their opinion on the use of mifepristone until late spring. Oral arguments are set for Tuesday (Jane Norman/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The same U.S. Supreme Court that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion will hear oral arguments Tuesday over access to mifepristone, a pharmaceutical used in both medication abortion and miscarriage care.

The nine justices will then decide whether to leave access to the drug intact or require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to revert prescribing instructions to what were in place before 2016.

The court decision will affect the entire country, including states that have sought to shore up access to reproductive rights following the Dobbs ruling less than two years ago.

The Supreme Court opinion, likely not to come until late spring, will land in the middle of a presidential campaign in which Democrats are elevating the question of reproductive rights. The debate is also likely to affect GOP efforts to grow their majority in the U.S. House and flip the Senate red.

Trend toward medication abortion

Medication abortion, a two-drug regimen that uses mifepristone and misoprostol, was used in 63% of abortions in the United States during 2023, according to a report released earlier this month by the Guttmacher Institute.

The new data shows a continued trend away from procedural abortions and toward medication abortion, which is approved up to 10 weeks gestation, that has been steadily increasing since the FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000.

Medication abortions accounted for about 6% of pregnancy terminations in 2001, rising to 24% in 2011, before reaching 53% in 2020, according to Guttmacher.

During the last calendar year, the report says there were 1,026,690 abortions throughout the country, with 642,700 of those being medication abortions.

The numbers may not represent the full picture, however.

“The medication abortion counts for 2023 do not include self-managed medication abortions that take place outside of the formal health care system or abortion medication mailed to people in states with total abortion bans,” the Guttmacher report states. “While there are no comprehensive data on the number of self-managed medication abortions in the United States, evidence suggests they have been increasing in the past several years.”

Alliance Defending Freedom suit

The case about to go in front of the Supreme Court, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, began in November 2022 when Alliance Defending Freedom sued the FDA on behalf of four anti-abortion medical organizations and four anti-abortion doctors.

In the original lawsuit and numerous briefs since then, ADF argued that mifepristone leads to problematic situations for doctors who have to assist patients with complications from medication abortions. They’ve also made claims about safety, which have been repeatedly refuted by major medical organizations.

The lawsuit had called for the judicial system to overturn the FDA’s original 2000 approval of mifepristone, which U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk essentially agreed with, in his April 2023 ruling.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, heard oral arguments in the federal government’s appeal of that ruling in May 2023 before issuing its decision a few months later in August.

That three-judge panel said mifepristone could stay on the market, but that when and how patients can access the drug should go back to what was in place before the FDA began making changes in 2016.

Telehealth and prescriptions

That would lower the maximum gestational age for using mifepristone from 10 weeks to seven weeks as well as remove the option for patients to get the prescription via telehealth and have it mailed to their homes.

Only doctors would be able to prescribe mifepristone, not health care professionals authorized to prescribe pharmaceuticals, like physician’s assistants or nurse practitioners.

Patents would have to go back to attending three, in-person doctor’s appointments in order to complete the process.

The dosage of mifepristone and the second pharmaceutical used in medication abortions, misoprostol, were different before the changes began to take effect.

The lower courts’ rulings never took effect and the appeals court’s ruling will remain on hold until the Supreme Court issues its opinion in the case, likely this summer.

Briefs filed

Dozens of organizations, attorneys general and lawmakers have filed briefs with the Supreme Court seeking to inform the justices’ thinking in the case ahead of Tuesday’s oral arguments.

More than 15 major medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, sought to reinforce the FDA’s determination that mifepristone is safe and effective in their brief.

“Restricting access to mifepristone will not only jeopardize health, but worsen racial and economic inequities and deprive women of the choices that are at the very core of individual autonomy and wellbeing,” the medical organizations wrote.

They noted that “major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” and that the “risk of death is almost non-existent.”

About 145 Members of Congress from 36 states urged the court to restrict access to mifepristone in a separate brief filed with the court.

“Since 2016, the FDA has only required adverse events reporting for deaths resulting from chemical abortion drugs; reporting is otherwise voluntary,” the members of Congress wrote, making the argument that reports are not required for injuries or impairment. “This action was not only arbitrary and capricious, but it also raised safety concerns for women seeking chemical abortion drugs.”

Here’s a timeline of the case and States Newsroom’s coverage of the major events:

Original lawsuit and District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling 

Federal judge could decide as soon as February to yank abortion pill nationwide https://bit.ly/41shPel

Attorneys general from Democratic-led states urge judge to keep abortion pill legal https://bit.ly/41eyMsy

Attorneys general from 23 GOP-led states back suit seeking to block abortion pill https://bit.ly/414ns2n

How the judge who could ban the abortion pill won confirmation in the U.S. Senate https://bit.ly/3KSc9EX

As future of abortion pill is weighed, Democrats in Congress see little they can do https://bit.ly/3msjt0y

Biden administration appeals judge’s ruling ordering abortion pill off U.S. market https://bit.ly/3KwWw4g

Biden after Texas ruling vows he will fight to ensure access to abortion pill https://bit.ly/3GA3GUi

Democratic leaders warn abortion pill ruling could endanger other FDA-approved drugs https://bit.ly/43oIkmA

5th Circuit Court of Appeals stay of district court ruling 

U.S. Department of Justice asks appeals court to pause abortion pill ruling https://bit.ly/43tqqPQ

Democratic attorneys general urge appeals court to keep abortion pill available https://bit.ly/3o6NGD1

Texas judge’s abortion pill ruling supported by 69 Republicans in Congress https://bit.ly/41qFWtV

U.S. Justice Department to ask Supreme Court to reject limits on access to abortion pill https://bit.ly/3MHUAbZ

U.S. Supreme Court stay of district court ruling 

DOJ warns Supreme Court of ‘significant chaos’ in health care if abortion pill rulings stand https://bit.ly/3o5ObwS

U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocks limits to abortion pill access https://bit.ly/3A5RTcE

Anti-abortion organizations urge U.S. Supreme Court to keep limits on abortion pill https://bit.ly/3GSu7EV

U.S. Supreme Court holds off on abortion pill ruling until midnight Friday https://bit.ly/3GZ5gzn

U.S. Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill as lawsuit continues https://bit.ly/3B50QDB

5th Circuit Court of Appeals 

Congressional Democrats urge reversal of district court ruling on mifepristone https://bit.ly/3M5UrOM

Three-judge panel in U.S. appeals court hears arguments in abortion pill case https://tinyurl.com/285etkds

Abortion pill to stay on the market until U.S. Supreme Court ruling after appeals court order https://tinyurl.com/h4whm3xw

U.S. Supreme Court 

U.S. Justice Department asks Supreme Court to take up abortion pill case https://tinyurl.com/msfa5dc2

U.S. Supreme Court to decide fate of medication abortion access nationwide http://tinyurl.com/5f5yk4w5

U.S. Supreme Court schedules March 26 oral arguments in abortion pill access case http://tinyurl.com/mry6ttvm

Dozens of ‘friend of the court’ briefs backing abortion pill access arrive at Supreme Court https://tinyurl.com/299vsyrv

Who wants the U.S. Supreme Court to limit abortion pill access? Here’s the list. https://tinyurl.com/2z96n7nn

More to know about the case

Fear and confusion over abortion access persists as SCOTUS takes its first post-Dobbs case https://tinyurl.com/yckkjf6m

Study cited by Texas judge in abortion pill case retracted https://tinyurl.com/397m2jxn

Researchers call for more abortion studies to be retracted https://tinyurl.com/yjefc3c6

Medication abortion rates grew 10% over the last few years, report shows https://tinyurl.com/4kjj9c4

Study cited by Texas judge in abortion-pill case under investigation https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/study-cited-texas-judge-abortion-pill-case-under-investigation

A U.S. Navy F-18 is prepared to launch off the USS Constellation on Jan. 1, 2003 in the Persian Gulf. The warplanes from the aircraft carrier had the mission to patrol the no-flight zone in southern Iraq (Joe Raedle/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republican leaders have spent the last year holding up a broadly bipartisan, Senate-approved bill that would repeal the authorizations for use of military force from the 1990s and early 2000s that were intended for the wars in Iraq.

The Senate approved the legislation following a 66-30 vote last March, but it has remained stalled in the House ever since, despite broad support from conservative Republicans, centrist lawmakers and left-leaning Democrats in that chamber.

Authorizations for Use of Military Force, while not formal declarations of war, have become the more common way for Congress to authorize when and where the president as commander-in-chief can send U.S. troops into conflict.

Leaving an AUMF on the books, especially decades after lawmakers originally approved it, could provide an avenue for the president to send troops into war or engage in attacks that haven’t been debated and approved by lawmakers on behalf of the public, analysts and lawmakers warn.

In this case, however, emerging wars and armed conflicts in the Middle East have changed the tone of the debate about removing two Iraq AUMFs from the ledger.

Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, one of the bill’s original co-sponsors, said in a brief interview with States Newsroom in mid-March there “hasn’t been a lot of oxygen” for the repeal bill to move through the House.

Cole, chairman of the Rules Committee, said he “hopes” leadership will see the bill warrants an up-or-down floor vote later this year.

“We ought to be looking for some things we can agree on on both sides and this is certainly one of them,” Cole said. “I think it’d get a good vote. So I’ll probably bring it up once we get through this period of time with the speaker and majority leader, and see if they’ve got any interest in it.”

The House bill to repeal the Iraq war AUMFs, which is a companion to the Senate-passed bill, has 71 co-sponsors that span the political spectrum and represent 30 states, showing the legislation could have the support needed to pass on an up-or-down vote.

Part of the slowdown, Cole said, is that the House Foreign Affairs Committee wants to take a different approach than what’s in the Senate-passed bill.

‘Repeal and replace’

House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said during a hearing in September that his preference would be for Congress “to repeal and replace all the AUMFs with a new, more limited authorization scope to the terror threats that we face today.”

That process would include repealing the AUMF that Congress approved following the 9/11 terrorist attacks that has given several presidents broad authority to conduct military actions against terrorist organizations around the globe.

An entirely new AUMF would not provide any authority for U.S. troops to occupy a country or for American taxpayers to reconstruct it, and it would include a sunset date “so that Congress is required to review and reauthorize more regularly,” McCaul said during that hearing.

“Doing this is hard and that’s why we haven’t done it in 22 years,” McCaul said at the time. “To succeed, a new AUMF requires bipartisan, bicameral and presidential support, and it will require us to answer tough questions, such as which terrorist organizations should be covered.”

New York Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks, ranking member on the committee, said during the hearing he believed both parties could agree that “we need to have this debate and we need Congress to reassert its proper authority over the power to declare war under the Constitution.”

“The time to pass repeal and replace of the 2001 AUMF legislation is now long overdue,” Meeks added. “The American people elected us to make tough decisions, not duck hard questions by ceding our constitutional authority over the executive branch.”

The House committee, however, hasn’t released its own bill to address the AUMFs in the six months since the hearing.

That leaves the Senate-approved bill and the identical House version as the most likely option to be enacted during an election year.

Hostilities in Middle East

Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said during a brief interview with State Newsroom that conflicts throughout the Middle East have “complicated” discussions about moving the measure through the House.

“My colleagues still want to do it, but I frankly think the increased pace of hostilities in the Middle East has complicated it — even though there’s nothing about Iraq that is related to these,” Kaine said.

The change in speaker of the House has also altered the original plan for debate and a vote in that chamber.

“The speaker had made a commitment that he would bring the bill up for a vote. They sacked the speaker,” Kaine said, referring to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy of California. “So it’s kind of back to square one with the new speaker.”

The current slate of House GOP leaders has so far shied away from moving the issue forward, possibly because the current team all voted against a similar bill that was brought to the floor in June 2021.

Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Republican Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York all voted against a bill to repeal the 2002 Iraq war authorization for use of military force, or AUMF,  that passed that chamber on a 268-161 vote.

Indiana’s Young says effort should be made

Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young, co-sponsor of the stalled Senate legislation, said during an interview with States Newsroom it would be “challenging” to move the bill forward in the House now, but said he believes lawmakers “should absolutely make an effort to get a vote.”

Young said conflicts throughout that region have changed the dynamics around approving the AUMF repeal bill, though that should not lead lawmakers to step back from having complicated conversations about when and how the U.S. military uses force.

“Here we are with members of Congress, who are notoriously risk-averse, attempting to deal with a multi-front crisis — Ukraine, Indo-Pacific, Middle East, southern border and so forth,” Young said.

“And there is an incentive to generously read long-standing, but outdated legal authorities in such a way that is highly deferential to the president,” Young added. “Unfortunately, to do so would be a gross abdication of our responsibilities in Congress to not just oversee military activities, but to actually authorize them.”

Young said he’s been asking questions about how the Biden administration is justifying using U.S. troops to counter attacks by Houthis on commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea.

“I’m very, very concerned that if Congress doesn’t specifically authorize the use of military force in a situation like this, we’re going to end up with another potential Iraq scenario,” Young said. “And none of my constituents want that.”

Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger said in a written statement to States Newsroom that last year she “was proud to see my colleagues in the U.S. Senate vote to remove this outdated war authority from the books — voting to pass a bill that I am proud to help lead in the U.S. House.”

“This authorization is long overdue for repeal, which is why we have voted multiple times to repeal the 2002 AUMF with bipartisan support,” Spanberger said. “The responsibility is now on Speaker Johnson to bring our bipartisan legislation to the floor of the U.S. House and demonstrate that we are serious about reclaiming our fundamental and constitutional authority to make decisions of war and peace.”

Johnson’s office did not return a request for comment on the AUMF repeal legislation.

‘A debate more about the past’

Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow and director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution, said in an interview with States Newsroom that trying to repeal old AUMFs is more of a theoretical than practical discussion right now, possibly slowing down the process.

“It’s almost a debate more about the past than it is about the future,” O’Hanlon said.

The AUMFs for the Iraq wars are “basically obsolete,” though O’Hanlon said, “there could be real value in updating (the 2001 AUMF) to extend it to the kind of groups that have actually been more involved in attacking U.S. forces in the region recently.”

There are also bigger, potentially more consequential debates that Congress should be preparing for, he said.

“The retracting of the Iraq resolutions strikes me as more political theater than anything else on balance,” O’Hanlon said. “The much more consequential issue to me is, what role would Congress play if China ever attacked Taiwan?”

Such a war would not be covered by any of the existing AUMFs that Congress has enacted in recent decades, likely setting off a frenzied debate about war powers between Congress and the president.

“And yet, the debate seems so hung up on the whole legacy of the forever wars in the Middle East that this giant elephant in the room is being ignored,” O’Hanlon said. “And President (Joe) Biden has said four times in the past that if China attacked Taiwan, that we would protect Taiwan. And he’s never acknowledged a role for Congress. To me, that is the real story.”

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

But presidents have long used AUMFs or declarations of war to justify military operations that might not have been expected or intended when Congress approved the measures.

“The landmark legislation on this in some ways was the War Powers Act of 1973, which was out of frustration with Vietnam, where Congress had just passed one little resolution about a small exchange of gunfire in 1964 and it wound up being used to justify and authorize the entire Vietnam War,” O’Hanlon said. “And, you know, 56,000 American dead later, Congress tried to be more assertive.”

In the decades since the legislation was approved, O’Hanlon said, there has been a recurring tug-of-war between the president as commander-in-chief and legislative branch about when and how the U.S. military can use force.

“There’s a long history of Congress, trying to have some influence but not really always wanting to declare war, not always feeling it’s realistic to reach that standard,” O’Hanlon said. “And yet not wanting to let the president just do whatever he wants.”

A bipartisan agreement on government spending for the remainder of fiscal 2024 emerged just before 3 a.m. on March 21, 2024 (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Congress released the final six government funding bills early Thursday, starting off a sprint toward the Friday midnight deadline to wrap up work that was supposed to be finished nearly six months ago.

The bipartisan agreement on the $1.2 trillion spending package, which emerged just before 3 a.m., came less than two weeks after the U.S. House and Senate approved the other six annual appropriations bills.

This package includes the spending measures for some of the most crucial functions of the federal government — the departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, State and Treasury.

The bill would also fund Congress, the Executive Office of the President, the judiciary and the Social Security Administration.

The 1,012-page spending package provides money for hundreds of programs, including many that lawmakers will tout on the campaign trail heading toward the November elections. Included:

• U.S. troops and civilian Defense Department employees will receive a 5.2% pay raise retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024.
• The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s new headquarters project — which has not only divided Democrats and Republicans, but the congressional delegations from Virginia and Maryland — will receive $200 million for construction on the Greenbelt, Maryland, site via the General Services Administration.
• States will get $55 million in new Election Security Grant funding.
• Customs and Border Protection as well as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement will get more than $4 billion in funding increases.
• Child care and early learning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services will receive a $1 billion increase in funding. The boost will go toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which provides grants to state, territorial and tribal agencies, and Head Start, which provides funding to local grantees.
• The U.S. Capitol Police will receive a 7.8% funding increase.
• Afghans who assisted the United States during the war would be eligible for an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas.
• The United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, the primary aid organization in Gaza, would be stripped of U.S. funding after Israel accused agency employees of taking part in Oct. 7 attacks.

Weekend work possible

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday morning the package clears “another hurdle towards our ultimate goal of funding the federal government.”

“This funding agreement between the White House and Congressional leaders is good news that comes in the nick of time: When passed it will extinguish any more shutdown threats for the rest of the fiscal year, it will avoid the scythe of budget sequestration and it will keep the government open without cuts or poison pill riders,” he said. “It’s now the job of the House Republican leadership to move this package ASAP.”

After the House votes to approve the package, likely Friday, Schumer said, “the Senate will need bipartisan cooperation to pass it before Friday’s deadline and avoid a shutdown.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday during a press conference he expected senators would be in session this weekend to take final votes on the package.

“My assumptions and what I’ve told our members is we’re likely to be here this weekend. That will be determined, however, by how long it stays in the House,” McConnell said.

“And when it’s over here, what we have recently done — and I think hopefully will work again — is that in return for a certain number of amendments, we can finish it quicker, hopefully, than putting us in the position of shutting down the government,” McConnell added.

Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said in a written statement the package would claw back $20.2 billion from the Internal Revenue Service funding that Democrats included in their signature climate change and tax package and $6 billion in unused COVID-19 funds.

On immigration, the funding package “cuts funding to NGOs that incentivize illegal immigration and increases detention capacity and the number of Border Patrol Agents to match levels in the House-passed appropriations bill and the Secure the Border Act (H.R. 2),” he said, referring to non-governmental organizations.

The package also includes funding for the nation’s defense. “This FY24 appropriations legislation is a serious commitment to strengthening our national defense by moving the Pentagon toward a focus on its core mission while expanding support for our brave men and women who serve in uniform,” Johnson said. “Importantly, it halts funding for the United Nations agency which employed terrorists who participated in the October 7 attacks against Israel.”

More than $1B to reduce child care costs

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a written statement that she was “proud to have secured $1 billion more to lower families’ child care costs and help them find pre-K — a critical investment to help tackle the child care crisis that is holding families and our economy back.”

“From day one of this process, I said there would be no extreme, far-right riders to restrict women’s reproductive freedoms — and there aren’t,” Murray said. “Democrats stood firm to protect a woman’s right to choose in these negotiations and focused on delivering investments that matter to working people.”

Democratic lawmakers, Murray said, “defeated outlandish cuts that would have been a gut punch for American families and our economy — and we fought off scores of extreme policies that would have restricted Americans’ fundamental freedoms, hurt consumers while giving giant corporations an unfair advantage, and turned back the clock on historic climate action.”

The House and Senate must debate and approve the measure in less than two days under the stopgap funding agreement, otherwise a weekend funding lapse would begin. If it went on beyond the brief period of the weekend, a partial government shutdown would begin.

The House can easily hold a vote within that timeline, but the Senate will need to reach agreement among all 100 of its members in order to avoid casting votes past that benchmark.

Here’s a look at where Congress increased funding and where it cut spending on these six government funding bills for fiscal year 2024, which began back on Oct. 1.

Defense

Congress plans to spend $824.5 billion on the Defense spending bill, which predominantly funds the Pentagon, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

That bill includes funding for a 5.2% pay raise for military and civilian defense employees that will be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024. The basic allowance for housing will increase by 5.4% and the basic allowance for sustenance will increase by 1.7%.

That total spending level would be divvied up among several core programs, including $176.2 billion for military personnel, an increase of $3.5 billion; $287.2 billion for operations and maintenance, $9.1 billion above current levels; $172 billion for procurement of military equipment, $9.8 billion more than the enacted level; and $148.3 billion for research and development, an $8.6 billion increase, according to a House GOP summary and a summary from House Democrats.

The Israeli Cooperative Missile Defense Programs would get $300 million for research and testing as well as $200 million for procurement, including for the Iron Dome and David’s Sling. An additional $300 million would go toward the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, said in a statement the bill “will invest in our ability to stay ahead of the threat of China, defend our country from foreign adversaries while standing firm with America’s allies, and take care of our servicemembers and their families.”

The joint explanatory statement that accompanies the bill calls on the Department of Defense to look into why the military is having difficulty recruiting.

“The Military Services are in the midst of one of the greatest recruiting crises since the creation of the all-volunteer force,” it says. “Since retention of enlisted servicemembers remains strong, those who continue to serve will promote to more senior grades, leaving a distressing shortfall in junior enlisted servicemembers, who account for 40 percent of the total active U.S. military force. The Nation needs America’s youth to strongly consider uniformed service.”

The package calls on the Defense Department to “conduct an independent survey to better understand the failure of recruitment efforts by the services,” according to House Republicans’ summary of the bill.

The secretary of Defense must also brief the Defense Appropriations subcommittees on a proposal to increase the pay for junior enlisted troops.

Financial Services and General Government 

The Financial Services and General Government bill — which funds the U.S. Treasury Department, Executive Office of the President, judiciary and more than two dozen smaller programs — would receive $26.1 billion in funding. That’s about $1.1 billion below the current funding levels for those programs.

Senate FSGG Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, said in a written statement the “bipartisan legislation invests in these critical priorities for our nation and more — including providing key resources to tackle the opioid epidemic and the necessary funding to build the new FBI headquarters in Greenbelt, Maryland.”

“Building an economy that works for everyday Americans requires supporting our small businesses and community-based lenders, protecting consumers, building out our broadband infrastructure, and ensuring the security of our financial system,” Van Hollen said.

The Department of Treasury would receive $14.2 billion, a $22.9 million reduction to its current funding levels. Of that total funding level, $12.3 billion would go to the Internal Revenue Service, equal to its current funding, and $158 million would go toward the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Judiciary would get more than $8.6 billion to operate the U.S. courts, including the District Courts, Courts of Appeals and other judicial services. That funding level is an increase of nearly $170 million.

It provides $129 million for salaries and expenses of the U.S. Supreme Court and $20 million to care for the building and its grounds, according to the joint explanatory statement.

The bill includes $791 million in funding for the District of Columbia, a decrease of $1 million. That includes $40 million in residential tuition support, $30 million in emergency and security costs, $8 million in upgrades to sewer and water treatment and $4 million in HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, according to a bill summary from House Democrats.

The Executive Office of the President would receive about $872.5 million — a $6 million decrease from the 2023 fiscal level, according to a bill summary from Democrats.

That includes $114 million for the Office of Administration, $19 million for the National Security Council, $22 million for the Office of National Cyber Director and $457 million for the National Drug Control Policy.

The bill would provide the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission with about $151 million in funding, a decrease of $1.5 million. The bill bars CPSC from issuing a ban on gas stoves, “which would reduce consumer choice,” according to a House GOP bill summary.

That policy provision would prohibit CPSC from “promulgating, implementing, administering, or enforcing any regulation to ban gas stoves as a class of products,” according to the explanatory statement.

CPSC has not made any regulatory action to ban gas stoves. Agency officials have expressed concern about indoor air quality of gas stoves and the agency is researching the impacts on human health of those indoor gas emissions.

The Election Assistance Commission would receive a cut of $280,000 in funding for a total level of $27.7 million.

A total of $55 million from that allocation would go toward Election Security Grants “to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements,” according to the explanatory statement.

Homeland Security 

Congress plans to spend $62 billion on the Department of Homeland Security, including upgrading technology to screen for narcotics like fentanyl at U.S. ports of entry and an additional $495 million in funding to hire 22,000 border patrol agents.

The bill provides U.S. Customs and Border Protection with $19 billion, a $3 billion increase above current levels, and more than $9.6 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, an increase of $1.1 billion.

It puts in place policy requirements for detention centers, such as barring contracts with private companies that do not meet inspection standards, and providing an additional $3 million to expand the use of ICE body cameras, according to the explanatory statement. 

The legislation would require the Department of Homeland Security to publish data on the 15th of every month on the total detention capacity and the number of “got aways” and people “turned back” at the southern border, according to the joint explanatory statement.

DHS refers to people as “got aways” when an individual is observed making an unauthorized entry into the U.S. and is not turned away, or apprehended. That data is not publicly available.

The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would get $404 million, an increase of about $20 million. About $30 million of that funding would go “to support the safe reunification of families who were unjustly separated at the U.S.-Mexico border by the Trump Administration,” according to House Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The bill provides $5.1 billion for Enforcement and Removal Operations, an increase of $900 million above current funding. Of that, $355 million would go toward 41,500 detention beds.

The bill would appropriate $11.8 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, a $122.7 million boost; $10.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, an increase of $1.2 billion; and $25.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a funding cut of $72.9 million.

The FEMA funding would go toward several projects, with $20 billion of those funds for disaster relief.

Labor-HHS-Education 

The bill would appropriate $13.7 billion for the Labor Department, $145 million less than current funding levels and $79 billion for the Education Department, a cut of $500 million, according to the House GOP summary.

The Health and Human Services Department would get $116.8 billion, or about $3.9 billion less than the $120.7 billion provided during the last fiscal year. The House Democrats’ summary of the bill, however, says that when earmarks are factored into the total spending level, HHS would get a $955 million increase.

Senate Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee Chair Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, said in a written statement the bill “helps take on the fentanyl and opioid crisis, expand access to affordable child care, invest in critical mental health and affordable health care programs, and connect Americans with the education and workforce training they need to land good-paying jobs.”

Funding for HHS would go to numerous health programs, including a $300 million increase to the National Institutes of Health for a total spending level of $48.6 billion.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would get $9.2 billion, more than $4.5 million above its current funding level.

Title X family planning grants would get $286 million in funding, the same amount they currently receive, despite House Republicans proposing to completely eliminate the program.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, a central component of the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the mpox outbreak, would get $3.6 billion, a $5 million increase.

Of that total spending level, $1 billion would go toward the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and $980 million would go to the Strategic National Stockpile. That represents an increase of $65 million and $15 million, respectively.

The bill includes a $1 billion increase in funding for child care and early learning programs within HHS, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the legislation.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant would see a $725 million, 9%, increase in funding compared to current levels, for a total appropriation of $8.8 billion. Another $12.27 billion would go toward Head Start programs, a boost of $275 million over the current level.

“Sustained annual increases to our federal investments in child care and Head Start are critical in tackling the child care crisis and helping to ensure more families can find and afford the quality, affordable child care and early childhood education options they need,” Senate Democrats’ summary says. “With the new investments provided in this bill, annual discretionary funding for CCDBG and Head Start over the last three fiscal years has increased by $4.4 billion.”

The Education Department’s spending would go to numerous initiatives, including $24.6 billion for student financial aid programs.

Pell Grants, which go to about 7 million lower-income college students, would continue to have a maximum award of $7,395 during the 2024-2025 academic year. The Federal Work Study program for college students would also get equal funding at $1.2 billion.

The Labor-HHS-Education bill continues to include the so-called Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions with exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant person.

The decades-old provision, first added in the 1970s in a slightly different form, affects patients in federal health care programs like Medicaid and Medicare.

Similar provisions on abortion access exist throughout many of the other government funding bills.

Legislative Branch

The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill includes $6.75 billion for operations in the Capitol, including funding related to the summer’s party conventions and the presidential inauguration in January 2025.

The bill would boost funding for the U.S. Capitol Police to $792 million, a 7.8% increase from fiscal 2023.

The measure includes funding for retention and recruitment programs of Capitol Police officers, including student loan payments and tuition reimbursements. Capitol Police officers, the force responsible for security at the Capitol complex, reported lower morale in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“This is an essential investment in democracy and oversight that bolsters the legislative branch’s capacity to better serve the public,” said Sen. Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. “This bill delivers the funding and infrastructure required for the U.S. Capitol Police to safeguard the Capitol complex and keep it accessible to the public.”

A joint explanatory statement accompanying the bill says the measure would allow $2 million for Capitol Police to protect members of Congress outside the Capitol complex but within the Washington, D.C., region. Members have experienced increased threats in recent years.

The measure also includes funding for quadrennial events related to the presidential election.

Capitol Police would receive $3.2 million for overtime to support the national political conventions — Republicans’ in Milwaukee and Democrats’ in Chicago — over the summer and to prepare for the inauguration in January.

Inauguration Day is in the next fiscal year, which begins in October, but expenses associated with preparing for it could be incurred this year. The bill would allocate nearly $3.7 million for salaries and expenses associated with the inauguration.

The bill would provide $16.6 million for Capitol grounds, House and Senate offices and the Capitol Power Plant.

The measure includes a provision that would claw back unspent funds from members’ Representational Allowances, the accounts that reimburse senators and representatives for official expenses. Unspent funds from those accounts would be used to pay down the national debt.

The measure includes a longstanding policy freezing members’ pay.

State-Foreign Operations 

Congress plans to allocate just over $58.3 billion for the Department of State, U.S. Agency for International Development and other related programs, including refugee emergency assistance and diplomatic activities.

Republican lawmakers are touting an overall cut to the bill — down from last year’s $59.7 billion total.

The bill includes $11.8 billion for the U.S. State Department and USAID and $10.3 billion for international development, including a loan to the International Monetary Fund to provide economic relief for some of the world’s poorest nations.

The bill allocates $10 billion for global health initiatives that focus on combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as providing vaccination programs for children.

Of that health funding, Democrats cheered that the bill “protects longstanding funding,” as highlighted by Murray’s office, for family planning and reproductive health services in poor nations around the globe, for which nearly $524 million is allocated, remaining at the same level as the current spending level.

Funding appropriated to the president for multilateral assistance to international organizations and programs — ranging from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to programs for victims of torture — is set to drop to $436.9 million from last year’s funding level of $508.6 million.

That reduction, in part, reflects current political tension over the Israel-Hamas war.

Absent from the bill are funds to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, a primary humanitarian organization in the Palestinian Gaza Strip and West bank territories. Many Western nations cut UNRWA funding after Israel accused 13 of its employees of taking part in the Oct. 7 attacks and many more of sympathizing with Hamas and other militant groups. The agency received $75 million from the U.S. in fiscal year 2023.

Another notable absence from the bill is funding for the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, which received $17.5 million from the U.S. in last year’s funding bill.

Republicans celebrated the elimination of funding for the agency’s inquiry into human rights abuses in Palestinian territories, which the UN Human Rights Council opened after a flare up of violence in May 2021. The inquiry began to collect evidence of war crimes “committed by all sides” shortly after Hamas attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, killing some 1,200 and taking roughly 240 hostages.

The bill will meet the annual U.S. $3.3 billion commitment to Israel this year among the $8.9 billion in security assistance to foreign governments.

The funding roadmap for U.S. international activities extends several programs, notably authorizing an additional 12,000 Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans who assisted the U.S. during its war in Afghanistan.

Congress has not enacted the last six bills needed to fund the government in fiscal 2024, and may need to pass legislation to avoid a short-term funding lapse. The U.S. Capitol is shown on March 14, 2024 (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — Congressional staff were scrambling Wednesday to finalize sweeping legislation that would fund much of the federal government, but time was running short ahead of a Friday midnight deadline.

Leaders of the House and Senate and the Biden administration announced Tuesday they’d reached consensus on the final six government funding bills for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1. But neither chamber can vote on the agreement until the text of the package — which includes billions in crucial funding for health, defense, immigration and much more — is finished and released.

Lawmakers may need to pass another short-term stopgap spending bill, sometimes called a continuing resolution, or CR, to avoid a funding lapse when the current funding patch expires just as Saturday begins.

“We don’t yet know precisely when the House will act, but as soon as they send us the funding package I will put it on the Senate floor,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday morning.

“And from there — as we all know — it will take cooperation to get on the bill and consent from every senator to keep this process moving quickly.”

The New York Democrat said that even if senators from both political parties move with purpose, “it’s going to be a tight squeeze to get this funding package passed before the weekend deadline.”

Schumer asked senators “to be flexible, to be prepared to act quickly and to prioritize working together in good faith, so we can finish the appropriations process.”

If senators act in the same manner they did earlier this month when the Senate approved the other six spending bills just hours before their deadline, Schumer said, “the odds are good we can get this done without excessive delay or headaches.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a press conference Wednesday morning that he expected the text of the legislation to come out later in the day.

The Louisiana Republican said he hoped that chamber would be able to wrap up work before the deadline Friday and predicted Congress wouldn’t need to pass another stopgap spending bill to avoid a weekend funding lapse.

“We should have the bill text, hopefully, by this afternoon,” Johnson said.

Deadline after deadline

Congress has been pushing off its deadline to wrap up work on the dozen annual appropriations bills since the start of fiscal year 2024 last autumn, using a series of CRs to keep funding flat with a few exceptions.

Lawmakers were able to reach a bipartisan agreement on six of the spending bills in early March, quickly holding broadly bipartisan votes to approve the package in the House and Senate.

Once lawmakers approve the final six spending bills and President Joe Biden signs the package, both chambers of Congress will likely begin work in earnest on the fiscal 2025 process ahead of their next Oct. 1 deadline.

Biden submitted his budget request earlier this month, which was followed by White House budget director Shalanda Young testifying in front of the Senate Budget Committee on the proposal.

The House Appropriations Committee began hearings this week with Cabinet secretaries and agency heads on their funding requests for the next round of appropriations bills. The Senate panel will likely begin those hearings in the coming weeks.

Overseas assistance

The House will also turn its attention toward approving emergency assistance to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan in some form after wrapping up work on the current appropriations process, Johnson said Wednesday during his press conference.

“We had to get the approps done first and having done that now we’ll turn our attention to it. And we won’t delay on that,” he said.

Johnson didn’t say exactly what form aid would take or how much funding a House bill would provide, but did say there are a “a number of avenues” that Republicans have been considering.

“We’re talking about the whole supplemental and all of these pieces — whether they’d go individually or as a package — all of those things are being debated and discussed,” Johnson said.

There are ongoing conversations among House GOP lawmakers about possibly using seized Russian assets and a loan to provide Ukraine with additional assistance, Johnson said.

The Senate in February approved a broadly bipartisan bill to provide Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with $96 billion in emergency spending. Much of that money would flow through the U.S. government, including for the departments of Defense and State.

House Republicans, however, are having a debate about the difference between providing military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine, Johnson said.

“Internally, I think there is a big distinction in the minds of a lot of people between lethal aid for Ukraine and the humanitarian component,” he said.

Johnson, who has been noncommittal publicly about whether the House would ever take up assistance to Ukraine, seemed to shift somewhat to supporting the idea of aid, even if he didn’t comment specifically on the substance.

“We understand the role that America plays in the world. We understand the importance of sending a strong signal to the world that we stand by our allies,” Johnson said. “And we cannot allow terrorists and tyrants to march through the globe.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, walks back to his office following a vote in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 11, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images).

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said Thursday that it’s up to states and not Congress to preserve access to in vitro fertilization, weighing in on a growing national debate and campaign issue.

“It’s not my belief that Congress needs to play a role here,” the Louisiana Republican said during a press conference at the House GOP retreat in West Virginia. “I think this is being handled by the states.”

Republicans, he said, support IVF as a way for people to begin or grow their families, as long as it’s handled “ethically.”

“And I think the states are handling that well,” Johnson said.

IVF access blew up into a nationwide problem for Republicans after the Alabama state Supreme Court ruled in February frozen embryos constitute “children” under state law. Democrats have stressed their support for reproductive rights and fertility treatments in contrast to the Alabama ruling.

The decision halted IVF access in the state until the legislature approved and Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation this month to provide IVF clinics with civil and criminal immunity. That new law, however, has left numerous questions for clinics in Alabama.

Democrats attempt to pass legislation

Democrats in the U.S. Senate have tried to pass two bills that would have addressed access to IVF in the weeks since the Alabama state Supreme Court ruling, but Republican senators blocked them each time.

Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth in late February tried to pass her bill to protect IVF access nationwide, but Mississippi Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith blocked the bill.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray sought approval to pass her bill to expand access to IVF for military service members and veterans this week, but Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford opposed her efforts.

Both Democratic senators tried to pass their bill through the unanimous consent process, which allows any senator to block the bill from moving forward. The Senate hasn’t yet held a roll call vote on either bill.

Several House GOP lawmakers have introduced resolutions to express the sense of Congress that IVF is a good thing and that Americans should have access to it, though those are not bills and therefore wouldn’t actually protect access to the procedure.

Johnson, speaking Thursday during the press conference, said he and the Republican Party support IVF and protecting it, just not with nationwide legislation.

“That’s a remarkable thing and it’s something we ought to protect and preserve,” Johnson said. “And I think our party is certainly committed to that.”

Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young testifies about the fiscal 2025 budget request before the Senate Budget Committee March 12, 2024 (Screenshot from committee webcast).

WASHINGTON — White House budget director Shalanda Young pressed senators Tuesday to pass legislation implementing core elements of President Joe Biden’s latest budget request, saying it would boost the economy and programs that help working Americans.

Young told the Senate Budget Committee during a two-hour hearing the tax, spending and economic policies in the proposal would continue the country’s recovery from the pandemic, though she admitted the long odds of a divided Congress approving all the recommendations.

“President’s budgets are to show a vision,” Young said. “Most budgets are not picked up lock, stock and passed. But the idea is that presidents should put forward how they believe the country should move forward.”

“This president believes we have to keep investing in the American people, grow the economy for the middle class, give working families a shot in this country and we can do that through a fairer tax code,” Young added.

The $7.266 trillion budget proposal for fiscal 2025, slated to begin Oct. 1, was released Monday, kicking off the annual budget and appropriations process that likely won’t wrap up until after the elections.

Congress is still trying to complete work on the dozen government funding bills members were supposed to approve more than five months ago, following Biden’s last budget request.

The House and Senate voted last week to approve six of the spending measures, but have yet to release the final six ahead of their current March 22 deadline.

Child tax credit, taxes on higher earners

Biden’s budget request calls on lawmakers to expand the child tax credit to what was in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and require wealthy Americans to “pay their fair share” in taxes.

Young, former staff director of the House Appropriations Committee, said the total spending levels for defense and domestic discretionary programs adhere to the agreement Biden struck with former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, last year.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham argued the spending levels for the Department of Defense and other national security initiatives are not sufficient given the threats to the United States from around the world.

Those total spending levels were approved by the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support.

“I just want the American people to understand from my point of view, for whatever it’s worth, I’ve never seen this many threats at once,” Graham said.

U.S. House GOP leaders, he said, should take up and pass the $95 billion emergency supplemental spending bill for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan that senators approved in February.

“The supplemental has money not only for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine. It has money for all our own defense needs,” Graham said, adding he was “insistent” on getting the aid enacted. “Hopefully we can find a way to get it out of the House. I’ll keep trying.”

Grassley critical of no plan on Social Security

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member on the Budget Committee, criticized Biden’s budget request as insufficient and the president for not putting forward more ideas that GOP lawmakers could support.

Grassley said the budget request’s lack of a concrete plan to avoid a drop-off in Social Security benefits in less than a decade represented “a sad political climate,” calling on Biden as well as likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to show leadership on the issue.

“What do they think’s going to happen in 2033, just eight years down the road?” Grassley said. “When we all know that if we don’t do something about Social Security, everybody’s benefits are going to go down to 77% of what they’re getting now.”

“If there was ever a time for a president to show leadership with his budget, this is it,” Grassley added. “Instead, he offers proposals so far out of the mainstream most have already even been rejected by congressional Democrats.”

Whitehouse sees ‘statement of values’

Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said Biden’s budget request offers an opportunity for the president to differentiate himself from Trump.

“As the president is fond of saying, a budget is a statement of values,” Whitehouse said. “That message is especially salient this year as President Biden and MAGA Republicans offer starkly different visions of our country’s future.”

Biden’s budget request “puts the middle class first … and paves the way for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America,” Whitehouse said.

House Republicans’ budget resolution for the upcoming fiscal year, which they debated and approved in committee last week, would “undo pro-growth investments that are creating jobs, driving a clean energy boom and lowering costs for households across the country — all while calling to make the Trump tax cuts for the very wealthy permanent,” he said.

Lowering costs for working families

Young testified before the committee that Biden’s budget request “protects and builds on the progress made over the last three years, and proposes additional policies to lower costs for working families, including for health insurance, prescription drugs, child care, utilities, housing, college, energy and more.”

“These investments will help working families keep more of their hard-earned paychecks and strengthen our economy,” Young said. “It also invests in American working families.”

The budget request, she said, “extends Medicare solvency indefinitely by requiring the wealthy people to pay their fair share toward Medicare and reducing prescription drug costs.”

The budget doesn’t propose raising taxes on anyone making more than $400,000 annually, Young said.

(Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs expanded access to in vitro fertilization on Monday, saying that eligible unmarried veterans and veterans in same-sex marriages can now access IVF at VA health care facilities.

The announcement notes that federal law requires the VA only provide IVF treatments to veterans whose issues having children are due to a health condition from their military service.

“Raising a family is a wonderful thing, and I’m proud that VA will soon help more Veterans have that opportunity,” VA Secretary Denis McDonough said in a written statement. “This expansion of care has long been a priority for us, and we are working urgently to make sure that eligible unmarried Veterans, Veterans in same-sex marriages, and Veterans who need donors will have access to IVF in every part of the country as soon as possible.”

The VA has only provided IVF care for married veterans who were able to use their own eggs or sperm during the process, but the new announcement allows veterans to use donor eggs, sperm and embryos.

The VA noted in its announcement the department doesn’t cover surrogacy costs.

The VA also reiterated it provides up to $2,000 in adoption expenses for veterans with a disability connected to their military service that caused infertility.

Legislative options

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray said in a written statement the VA’s decision to expand access to IVF “is an important step forward that will help more veterans start and grow their families.”

“I have fought for over a decade to expand fertility care and treatment to more veterans and servicemembers, and I’m thrilled that DoD, and now VA, are making progress toward expanding their IVF services with new policies will be life-changing for veterans and servicemembers who were for far too long excluded from care,” she said.

Murray plans to go to the Senate floor this week to ask for quick approval through unanimous consent of a bill to further broaden access to fertility treatments.

That bill, titled the Veteran Families Health Services Act, would allow the VA to permanently expand which veterans have access to IVF as well as provide the option for military members to freeze their eggs or sperm before deployment to combat zones or hazardous duty assignments.

The legislation would expand adoption assistance for veterans and require both the VA and the Department of Defense to “facilitate research on the long-term reproductive health needs of veterans.”

The Senate bill has 24 co-sponsors, all of whom are Democrats or are independents who align politically with the Democratic Party.

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs ranking member Mark Takano and the Health Subcommittee ranking member Julia Brownley, both California Democrats, said in a joint statement the expansion “is a step in the right direction to allow eligible unmarried veterans and veterans in same-sex marriages to receive IVF, but we think current law is still too restrictive.”

“It is very difficult to prove that infertility has been caused by prior service to our country, and the onus is on the veteran to prove it,” the two wrote. “Most veterans with infertility have faced a difficult choice: pay the prohibitive cost of IVF out of pocket, or lose valuable treatment time pursuing a VA service connection.”

The two then pressed for Congress to approve a different bill that would expand IVF access for veterans, dubbed the Veterans Infertility Treatment Act.

That bill has 31 co-sponsors in the House, all of whom are Democrats.

Takano and Brownley said that their legislation is necessary to ensure “any veteran, regardless of whether their infertility is service-connected,” has access to IVF “as part of VA’s comprehensive medical benefits package.”

“Given what we recently saw in Alabama and the growing attacks on reproductive rights in our country, it is more clear than ever that we need to expand IVF access for veterans, regardless of where they live,” they wrote. “This new VA policy is an important step. We will continue to advocate for legislation that will ensure any veteran who wants to start a family can.”

President Joe Biden's $7.266 trillion budget request doesn’t actually spend any money since Congress controls the power of the purse (Drew Angerer/ Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden released his budget request for the upcoming fiscal year Monday, calling on Congress to stick to the spending agreement brokered last year and to revamp tax laws so that the “wealthy pay their fair share.”

The $7.266 trillion budget request doesn’t actually spend any money since Congress controls the power of the purse. But it contains details about what the president believes the federal government should change and how it should direct taxpayer dollars.

The fiscal 2025 budget request, which totals 188 pages, comes at an especially crucial time for Biden as he increasingly turns his attention toward winning reelection this fall, and follows by days his State of the Union speech. It reflects a budget year that would begin on Oct. 1.

“The story of America is one of progress and resilience, of always moving forward and never giving up. It is a story unique among nations,” Biden wrote in a message released alongside his latest budget request. “We are the only nation that has emerged from every crisis we have entered stronger than we went in.”

“While my Administration has seen great progress since day one, there is still work to do,” Biden added. “My Budget will help make that promise real.”

That total spending level would go toward numerous budget categories, including $900 billion on defense discretionary and $1.029 trillion on domestic discretionary spending.

Mandatory programs, which are mostly funded outside the annual budget and appropriations process in line with the laws that created them, would take up the rest of the government spending, with Social Security accounting for $1.543 trillion, Medicare spending $936 billion and Medicaid requiring $589 billion.

Another $965 billion in government spending would go toward interest payments on the country’s debt.

The budget request proposes a $1.781 trillion deficit during  fiscal 2025, which would decrease during the following four fiscal years before increasing again toward the end of the 10-year budget window.

The deficit would never drop below the $1 trillion mark.

Child tax credit, Medicare, Social Security

The budget calls on Congress to expand the child tax credit to the levels that were in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which helped cut child poverty nearly in half in 2021 to its lowest level in history,” the proposal says.

“The Budget would expand the credit from $2,000 per child to $3,000 per child for children six years old and above, and to $3,600 per child for children under six,” the request says.

The budget calls on U.S. lawmakers to bolster Medicare by “modestly increasing the Medicare tax rate on incomes above $400,000” and by “closing loopholes in existing Medicare taxes.”

The budget request says Biden “remains committed to working with the Congress to protect Medicare and Social Security for this and future generations,” but it doesn’t include any concrete proposals for avoiding a nearly 25% drop off in Social Security benefits in a decade when the trust fund becomes insolvent.

Ukraine, Israel funding

Office of Management and Budget Director Shalanda Young said on a call with reporters Monday morning the budget request calls on Congress to approve emergency spending for war efforts led by Ukraine and Israel.

“It is very frustrating,” Young said of the stalemate from House GOP leaders. “We have been asking for support for Ukraine since September. If you can remember, after October 7, we asked for support for Israel.”

The Senate voted 70-29 in February to send the House a $95 billion assistance package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, though House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, has so far refused to put the bill on the floor in that chamber for an up or down vote.

Biden also asked Congress, for the fourth time, to bolster spending on U.S. border security, she said.

Young is scheduled to testify before the Democratic-controlled Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday about the budget request.

She will testify in front of the House Budget Committee, which is controlled by Republicans on March 21, according to committee staff.

Those two hearings kick off the annual budget and appropriations process on Capitol Hill, though House GOP leaders upended the order of things last week when they debated and approved their budget resolution in committee.

Contrasts in Biden, GOP budget proposals

Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Jared Bernstein said during the call with reporters Monday the difference between House GOP’s budget resolution and the White House budget request is “reality.”

“We think we have a realistic growth forecast. We defended it extensively in the budget. We explain how we got to where we are,” Bernstein said, calling into question House Republicans optimistic prediction of 3% economic growth in order to balance their budget resolution.

“So you can write down whatever you want to get whatever result you want, but if it doesn’t match good, hard economic reality, it’s not useful,” Bernstein said.

Young doubled down on criticism of House Republicans’ budget resolution, saying it doesn’t “tell you what they cut, who they harm.”

“Everything is detailed in the discretionary budget, mandatory proposals, tax proposals,” Young said of the president’s budget request.

“Congressional Republicans give us their top lines, which have rosy economic projections that don’t fit reality,” Young said. “They also don’t tell you they’re going to cut the National Institutes of Health. They’re going to cut border security. They’re going to cut child care. They’re going to cut Head Start. That’s the only way you can do it.”

Last year’s work still undone

Congress’ budget resolution is a tax and spending blueprint that lays out the party’s vision for the 10-year budget window, but it doesn’t actually spend any money. That is reserved for the dozen annual government spending bills.

The House and Senate took overwhelmingly bipartisan votes last week to approve six of those bills for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1. But they have yet to release or approve the other half of their work, which is due before March 22, under the latest stopgap spending law.

Biden’s budget request for fiscal year 2025 should allow the House and Senate spending panels to move directly into next year’s process, drafting the 12 appropriations bills all over again sometime this spring.

But Congress will need to complete work on last year’s process, which is running more than five months behind schedule, before it can do that.

Republican reaction

Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York said in a joint statement released Monday that Biden’s budget request “doesn’t just miss the mark — it is a roadmap to accelerate America’s decline.”

“House Republicans reject Biden’s misguided budget proposal and have taken action to steer our nation back to a path of fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Our efforts to rein in the runaway spending spree from last year’s budget have already yielded results, lowering projected deficits by $2.6 trillion over the next decade.”

“The House’s budget plan for the next fiscal year, preceding the President’s proposal, reflects the values of hardworking Americans who know that in tough economic times, fiscal discipline is non-negotiable,” Johnson added. “House Republicans understand the American people expect and deserve nothing less from their government.”

A 1,050-page package of spending bills approved by the U.S. House on Wednesday, March, 6, now goes to the Senate, where lawmakers are expected to vote on it before the end of the week. President Joe Biden is then expected to sign it into law (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — U.S. House lawmakers cast a broadly bipartisan vote Wednesday to approve a six-bill government funding package, marking one of the few consequential votes on major legislation that chamber has taken since Republicans took the majority more than a year ago.

The $468 billion package includes half of the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that began back on Oct. 1, with lawmakers hoping to wrap up agreement on the other six before a March 22 deadline so as to avert a partial shutdown.

The 1,050-page package, which was approved 339-85, now goes to the Senate, where lawmakers are expected to vote on it before the end of the week. President Joe Biden is then expected to sign it into law.

‘Most conservative bills in history’

House Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, encouraged lawmakers to support the measure, saying it “increased defense funding and made targeted cuts” to other programs.

“With the odds stacked against us, House Republicans made progress in how we fund the government,” Granger said. “We drafted the most conservative bills in history.”

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, said she was “pleased” that Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress were able to negotiate a final agreement on the six bills.

“This legislation does not have everything either side may have wanted, but I am pleased that many of the extreme cuts and policies proposed by House Republicans were excluded,” DeLauro said.

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy spoke against the package, saying it spends too much money and doesn’t include enough changes to policy that conservatives pressed for in the House’s original spending bills.

“All of this is a shell game,” Roy said.

Money for agencies, earmarks

The spending package includes funding for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

It also provides funding for numerous agencies, like the Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, National Science Foundation and military construction projects.

The package includes $12.655 billion for more than 6,600 projects that members requested through the earmarking process that’s often called community project funding or congressionally directed spending, according to two people familiar with the totals.

The six bills include discretionary spending, which Congress approves annually and can fluctuate, as well as some mandatory spending, which is required by laws that Congress has approved.

Discretionary accounts, which make up about one-third of federal spending each year, are subject to the spending caps agreement that House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, and Biden agreed to in January.

That compromise set defense discretionary funding at $886.3 billion and domestic discretionary spending at $772.7 billion.

WIC gets a $1 billion boost

The Agriculture-FDA spending bill would provide $211 billion in total spending, with $26.2 billion of that classified as discretionary.

The legislation would boost spending on the Special Supplemental Nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, by $1 billion, bringing the total mandatory spending on that program to more than $7 billion. That increase was needed to avoid states having to establish waitlists for the program.

The bill would add the U.S. secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and provide $2 million in funding to ensure the secretary can notify the CFIUS when agricultural land is sold to entities that “may pose a risk to national security.”

The bill specifically mentioned purchases by China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.

Georgia Democratic Rep. Sanford Bishop, ranking member on the Agriculture-FDA spending panel, said during floor debate the elements in the bill will affect “the lives of every single American” whether they live in a rural, suburban or urban area.

“The bill is free from almost all of the extreme policy riders in the previous versions and it rejects interference with Americans’ health care, reproductive freedom, as well as attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion training,” Bishop said.

“While the bill is not the best,” Bishop said, “it brings us closer than the earlier version to meeting the needs of the American people.”

Reversing ‘Second Amendment overreach’

The Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill totals $68.5 billion in discretionary spending, with $37.5 billion going to the DOJ, $24.9 billion for NASA, $10.8 billion for the Commerce Department and $9.1 billion for the National Science Foundation.

Those spending levels are all decreases from current funding levels. The Federal Bureau of Investigation would need to account for a $32 million cut to its $10.6 billion salaries and expenses budget, while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will need to address a $47 million cut to its $1.6 billion budget for salaries and expenses.

House Republicans said in their summary of the bill the spending cuts would reverse the ATF’s “Second Amendment overreach” and hold the FBI “accountable for targeting everyday Americans.”

Lawmakers urged the FBI to “allocate the maximum amount of available resources” toward arresting people selling fentanyl and opioids, according to an explanatory statement that accompanied the bill.

Members of Congress received millions in earmarks in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill to address fentanyl in their home states. That directed funding included a $3 million request by Louisiana Republican Rep. Garret Graves for the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office task force on fentanyl and violent crime.

Washington state Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell secured slightly more than $1 million for the drug and fentanyl task force of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. And Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville received $200,000 for the city of Fairhope to address fentanyl.

‘Tough but fair’ talks

Kentucky Republican Rep. Hal Rogers, chairman of the CJS subcommittee, said during floor debate that “tough but fair bipartisan negotiations” led to a “strong bill.”

“The fiscal situation facing the nation requires Congress to make significant spending reductions while maintaining strong commitments to the safety, security and wellbeing of the American people,” Rogers said.

The Energy-Water funding bill would get $52 billion, with that funding divvied up between the Energy Department, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army Corps of Engineers.

The Energy Department would get $50.2 billion with nearly $33 billion going to its defense programs, much of which are devoted to nuclear weapons, and $17.3 billion going to its non-defense programs, such as nuclear energy.

The Interior-Environment spending bill would provide $41.2 billion in funding, a cut of $1.5 billion compared to current levels, according to a summary of the bill from House Democrats.

The legislation would reduce funding for the National Park Service by $150 million to a total funding level of $3.3 billion.

Funding for the Bureau of Land Management would be cut by $81 million to $1.38 billion.

Spending on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would drop by $51 million to $1.7 billion.

And appropriations for non-fire activities at the U.S. Forest Service would total $3.8 billion, a reduction of $157 million.

Wildland fire management would receive $6.1 billion in spending for this fiscal year.

Idaho project blocked

Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Simpson, chairman of the Interior-Environment spending panel, said during debate that “cutting funding is never easy but with a national debt in excess of $34 trillion we made tough choices in this bill to rein in spending.”

Simpson touted that the legislation would block the Lava Ridge Wind Project in his home state from advancing until the secretary of the Interior, in consultation with local officials and stakeholders, looks at “alternative plans to reduce the harmful impacts of this project.”

The Military Construction-VA appropriations bill includes nearly $330 billion in total funding, with $172.5 billion going to mandatory accounts and $135.25 billion in discretionary spending.

Military construction would receive $18.7 billion in spending for more than 160 major projects. That money would be divided up between numerous accounts, with $2 billion for housing, $336 million for child development centers and $293 million for the NATO Security Investment Program, among several other line items.

The VA would receive $134.8 billion in discretionary funding for everything from $3.1 billion for veterans’ homelessness prevention to $16.2 billion for mental health to $343 million for rural health.

Women’s health would receive $990 million, efforts to address opioid misuse would get $715 million and prosthetic research would receive $943 million.

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the ranking member on the Military Construction-VA spending panel, said she was “so pleased” to work with others on the committee to “end harmful VA research on dogs, cats and non-human primates within two years.”

Background checks and veterans

The package would bar the VA from reporting any veterans who receive assistance managing their finances to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System without the approval of a judge or magistrate that the veteran “is a danger to himself or herself or others.” The NICS system is supposed to be used to run background checks ahead of gun purchases.

That provision was added to the Senate’s original Military Construction-VA spending bill after Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy and Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran introduced it and senators voted 53-45 in October to adopt it during floor debate.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and a member of the Military Construction-VA appropriations subcommittee, said at the time he supported the Kennedy-Moran amendment.

“It is not right that a D.C. bureaucrat at the VA could take away veterans’ legal rights to their firearms simply because they need assistance in managing their finances,” Tester said during floor debate in October.

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jacky Rosen of Nevada voted for the amendment, as did independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona.

The House voted 228-206 in July to adopt a similar amendment, sponsored by House Veterans Committee Chairman Michael Bost, an Illinois Republican, during floor debate on its original version of the bill. That proposal didn’t have the possibility of a judge approving the information to go to NICS.

Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Mary Peltola of Alaska, Marie Perez of Washington state and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico voted to adopt the amendment.

California Democratic Rep. Mark Takano, ranking member on the Veterans Affairs Committee, said during floor debate Wednesday that when a “veteran applies for benefits they’ve earned, they are screened to make sure that they are competent to use those benefits” to avoid veterans being taken advantage of.

“If a veteran is determined to be mentally incompetent, they are appointed a fiduciary and by law they are reported to the … NICS,” Takano said, adding that those determinations are due to severe mental illnesses like dementia or schizophrenia.

Takano said he could not and would not support the legislation changing that reporting requirement, since 68% of veterans’ suicides involve a firearm and “there are very serious reasons why a person with those conditions should not be able to purchase a firearm.”

“Veterans’ lives are on the line and I will not agree to legislation that will cause more people’s lives to be lost to gun violence,” Takano said.

Added air traffic controllers

The Transportation-HUD funding bill would get about $97.5 billion in discretionary funding with nearly $27 billion for transportation and $70.1 billion for HUD.

Within those funding levels, the Federal Aviation Administration would receive $19.9 billion, which would allow for an “additional 1,800 new air traffic controllers and continues to support modernizing the legacy systems in our National Airspace,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

HUD’s funding would go toward several programs, including $32.4 billion for tenant-based rental assistance, $16 billion for project-based rental assistance, $4.1 billion for homeless assistance grants and $3.3 billion for Community Development Block Grants.

Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, chairman of the Transportation-HUD spending panel, said during debate that lawmakers “worked really hard on safety first” for people flying, traveling by rail, or driving.

The bill, Cole said, also maintains the safety net for people using public housing and includes “historic gains for Indian housing programs and Indian road programs.”

“We all know what has happened with the cost of rent and housing,” Cole said. “And frankly we didn’t want to put anybody out of their home and we avoided doing that.”

he U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send a massive spending package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline (Getty Images Plus).

WASHINGTON — Congress is on track to approve a staggering $468 billion in government spending this week, finishing part of the work it was supposed to complete by Oct. 1 — including a big boost intended to shore up the federal WIC nutrition program for women, infants and children.

Other agencies will see cuts, including the FBI and the National Park Service, as Democrats and Republicans haggled over winners and losers in the annual spending process. There are spending increases for items such as wildland fire management, first-time-ever federal oversight of cosmetics and emergency rental assistance for low-income families.

Surviving: Plenty of earmarks for lawmakers’ local projects, also referred to as congressionally directed spending or community project funding, which received $12.655 billion in spending for the 6,630 projects within the six spending bills combined into one package, according to two people familiar with the total.

For example, in the bill that provides funds for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, that includes everything from $3 million for the Integrative Precision Agriculture Laboratory at the University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. to $800,000 for Livingston Parish Courthouse Renovations in Louisiana to $3.3 million for the Pinetop Wildland Fire Response Station in Arizona.

The U.S. House and Senate are expected to take broadly bipartisan votes to send the package known as a “minibus” to President Joe Biden ahead of a Friday midnight deadline.

However, agreement on six other consequential appropriations bills, which are due by March 22 and include health, defense and homeland security programs, remains elusive.

Dems tout WIC funding

The first batch of government funding bills brokered by the divided Congress includes the Agriculture-FDA, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, Interior-Environment, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD measures.

Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement released Sunday that she and other Democratic lawmakers “fought hard to protect investments that matter to working people everywhere and help keep our economy strong—rejecting devastating cuts to housing, nutrition assistance, and more.”

“Forcing states to pick and choose which moms and kids will be able to access essential WIC benefits was never an acceptable outcome to Democrats, and this bill ensures that won’t happen by fully funding WIC for millions of families nationwide,” Murray said, referring to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, which provides grants to states and had faced a shortfall.

Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, ranking member on the panel, said in a written statement the “bills will make a real difference in communities throughout the United States.”

“Members of the Appropriations Committee in both chambers have worked very hard to reach agreements on the bill text unveiled today,” Collins said. “I look forward to working with Chair Murray and our colleagues to bring this legislation to the Senate floor for a vote without any further delay.”

House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger, a Texas Republican, said the bills “achieve what we set out to do: strategically increase defense spending and make targeted cuts to wasteful non-defense programs.”

Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement the bipartisan bills “help keep communities safe and healthy.”

“I am grateful that each of these bills rejects many of the extreme cuts and policies proposed by House Republicans and protects the great strides we made over the last two years to reverse the underinvestment in domestic programs that Americans depend on,” DeLauro said. “I urge swift passage of this package and look forward to releasing the remaining 2024 funding bills.”

Agency cuts

The bills would cut funding from several federal agencies, including a $977 million reduction to the Environmental Protection Agency; a $654 million cut for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; a $150 million reduction to the National Park Service; and a $122 million cut to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

The Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Veterans Affairs and military construction projects are among the programs that would see an increase in their funding.

Congress, after approving these six bills this week, must finalize bipartisan agreement on the remaining six.

Those bills include Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and State-Foreign Operations. They are typically harder to negotiate than the bills in this week’s minibus.

Congress would likely start on the fiscal 2025 process shortly after approving all dozen annual appropriations bills, given that Biden is expected to send lawmakers his next request, for fiscal 2025, on March 11.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s funded in each of the bills that Congress will vote on this week.

Agriculture-FDA 

The Agriculture-FDA funding bill would provide $26.2 billion in discretionary spending for the agencies and programs within the legislation, including conservation and rural development. That represents a $383 million increase above current funding levels.

The USDA would receive $22.3 billion, which would be about $383 million more than current law. That discretionary funding would go toward several programs, including the Agricultural Research Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

The FDA would receive $3.5 billion in discretionary funding, including “$7 million to conduct oversight of cosmetics for the first time ever and $1.5 million to reduce animal testing through alternative methods,” according to a summary of the bill released by Senate Democrats.

The Agriculture-FDA measure includes significant mandatory spending as well, which is counted outside the discretionary spending caps the Biden administration and House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, agreed to in January.

Mandatory spending is required by laws that Congress has already approved. It makes up the largest component of federal expenditures and is often spent outside of the annual appropriations process, though some mandatory spending accounts are reported in the bills.

Discretionary accounts make up about one-third of federal spending and are what’s subject to the spending caps on the dozen annual appropriations bills.

The Agriculture-FDA bill would approve $7 billion for the Women, Infants and Children program, an increase of more than $1 billion compared to its current funding level.

The increase would “fully fund” the WIC program, which includes more than 7 million people, according to subcommittee Chairman Martin Heinrich, a New Mexico Democrat, who said in a statement he was “focused on delivering for American families, farmers and producers, and rural communities.”

“This bill gets that done, even while we had to make some tough decisions to get there,” Heinrich said. “I am especially proud that we stood firm to fully fund WIC and the other programs that will help put food on the table for America’s kids.”

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which provides grocery benefits to low-income families, would get $122.4 billion, a $32 billion decrease in mandatory spending that’s “due to the end of pandemic-era benefits and decreases in participation rates,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

Child nutrition programs — like the national school lunch program, school breakfast program and summer food programs — would get $33.3 billion, an increase of $4.7 billion over what the federal government currently spends.

The legislation doesn’t include many of the conservative policy riders House Republicans added in their original bill, such as a proposal to ban the abortion medication mifepristone from being sent to patients through the mail.

The bill has 72-pages of community projects, formerly known as earmarks, that will go to nearly every state in the country.

Commerce-Justice-Science 

The Commerce-Justice-Science spending bill provides approximately $67 billion in discretionary funding plus $2 billion in emergency funding “to address violent crime, counter the fentanyl crisis, and maintain U.S. scientific, technological, and economic superiority over China,” according to Senate Republicans’ summary of the bill.

That funding level would be divvied up with about $37.5 billion for the Department of Justice, $10.8 billion for the Department of Commerce, $9.1 billion for the National Science Foundation and nearly $24.9 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA.

The bill would approve $844 million for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or EOIR, that will go toward legal services for underrepresented communities and modifications to courtrooms. That is about $16 million less than current law.

The bill would address the more than 2.5 million case backlog in immigration courts by hiring new immigration judges and providing training.

The bill would require EOIR to implement a performance appraisal based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office for immigration judges and the agency has to submit a report to Congress on the results of the appraisal process.

The legislation provides an increase of $13 million for the Violence Against Women Act, bringing the funding level to  $713 million toward those programs. That funding will go toward assistance with transitional housing, domestic violence reduction, sexual assault services, research on violence against Indigenous women and legal assistance, among other initiatives.

The bill provides about $10.6 billion for the FBI, a decrease from fiscal 2023. That funding will go toward targeting fentanyl and opioid trafficking, child exploitation, trafficking and bioforensic analysis, among other initiatives.

The bill includes a 95% cut in funding for FBI construction, from $629.1 million to $30 million. The bill would require the FBI to conduct a study on the “feasibility of expanding the FBI operations in regional offices around the country,” according to the explanatory statement. 

The bill includes a provision that none of the funds can be used to “target or investigate parents who peacefully protest at school board meetings and are not suspected of engaging in unlawful activity.”

House Republicans have scrutinized the Justice Department after the agency directed the FBI to investigate threats of violence made to school board officials and teachers after a conservative backlash to discussions about race in public schools.

The bill would provide the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives with $1.6 billion, a decrease of $112 million below fiscal year 2023 levels in order to reverse “anti-Second Amendment overreach,” according to a summary of the bill by House Republicans.  

Members of Congress obtained 86 pages of earmarks in the Commerce-Justice-Science bill.

Energy-Water

The Energy-Water appropriations measure would moderately boost spending on defense — primarily the Energy Department’s nuclear programs — while cutting slightly from the bill’s domestic water infrastructure accounts.

The defense discretionary total in that bill, which is apart from overall Pentagon spending, would be $33.3 billion, a 6% increase from fiscal 2023, and discretionary domestic spending on the bill’s programs would be $24.9 billion, a 2% decrease.

The bill includes more than $50 billion for the Department of Energy, $8.7 billion for the Army Corp of Engineers, which oversees most federal water project construction, and $1.9 billion for the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation.

The National Nuclear Security Administration would see a nearly $2 billion funding increase from fiscal 2023, almost all of which is for the agency’s weapons activities.

The Bureau of Reclamation, the Interior Department agency that deals with water and hydroelectric power, would see a $31 million decrease to $1.9 billion.

The bill included 30 pages of earmarks.

Interior-Environment

The Interior-Environment funding bill, which covers the Interior Department, EPA and related agencies, totals $41.2 billion, which would be a decrease of more than $11 billion, more than 21%, from fiscal 2023.

The bill would cut nearly $1 billion of the EPA’s budget, a 9.6% decrease from fiscal 2023.

Most of that cut, $745 million, is from the agency’s Hazardous Substance Superfund. That account, which funds cleanup of massive environmental hazardous waste sites, would receive $537.7 million, down from $1.3 billion in fiscal 2023.

Two other long-term spending laws, the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law and Democrats’ 2022 energy, taxes and domestic policy law, provide additional funding for Superfund cleanup. Total federal spending would be more than $3 billion in fiscal 2024, even with the proposed cut.

Addressing wildfires was a priority in the bill, according to summaries from both Senate Democrats and House Republicans.

The bill includes $6 billion for the U.S. Forest Service, including $2.3 billion for the agency’s Wildland Fire Management program. That represents an increase of $1.37 billion for wildland fire management.

The bill would also maintain full funding for wildland firefighter pay, which was increased in the 2021 infrastructure law.

The bill maintains $900 million in mandatory federal spending for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that allocates money for federal land acquisition, state grants for outdoor recreation and related efforts.

And it would direct $1.9 billion in mandatory spending for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund that addresses roads and buildings across five Interior Department agencies, with the bulk of the funding going to the National Park Service.

The funding levels in both the Land and Water Conservation Fund and public lands fund meet caps established in the 2020 Great American Outdoors Act and do not count against the discretionary funding limit.

The bill includes 100 pages of earmarks.

Military Construction-Veterans Affairs

Lawmakers are touting the Military Construction and VA bill’s $326.4 billion total as “fully funding” veterans’ benefits and health care, bolstering national security in the Indo-Pacific region, and upgrading housing for service members and their families, among other priorities, according to a statement Sunday from Murray’s office.

The bill contains $175.2 billion in mandatory spending on veterans’ benefits that encompass disability compensation, education and employment training.

On the discretionary side, $153.92 billion would be allocated to the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs as well as four related agencies, including Arlington National Cemetery, American Battle Monuments Commission, Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

If cleared by Congress, the lion’s share of the bill’s funds, at $134.8 billion, would go to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Of that total, roughly $121 billion would be allocated for veterans medical care, including $16.2 billion for mental health, $5.2 billion for telehealth services, $3.1 billion for homelessness programs, $231 million for substance abuse and opioid misuse prevention, and $108 million for overall well-being programs, or “Whole Health Initiatives.”

The remaining $18.675 billion in discretionary funds would head to the Department of Defense for the planning and construction of several military projects, including $2.4 billion for shipyard infrastructure, $2 billion for military family housing, and $1.5 billion for construction or upgrades to military Reserve and Guard facilities.

Specific domestic projects and their locations can be found in the 11 pages of lawmaker earmarks for community funding. They include a range of infrastructure upgrades, numerous child development centers and several barracks upgrades at military sites across the U.S.

Other allocations in the military construction spending total include $634 million for energy projects, $293 million to the NATO Security Investment Program, and $489 million for base realignment and closures, $50 million of which will be dedicated to the cleanup of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS chemicals.

About $131 million would be allocated for planning, design and minor construction for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, which operates in a strategically important region for the U.S. military.

The Military Construction and VA spending bill also sets some funding levels for the following fiscal year. The bill allocates $195.8 billion for veterans’ benefits and $112.6 billion in discretionary programs in 2025.

Transportation-HUD 

The Transportation-HUD appropriations measure would appropriate about $89.5 billion in discretionary funding for the dozens of programs throughout the bill.

Another $8 billion in emergency funding was added to the legislation “to maintain current rental assistance for low income Americans amid a collapse in housing receipts that are used to help offset the cost of such assistance,” according to a summary of the bill from Senate Republicans.

The Department of Transportation would receive $27 billion in discretionary funding while another $79 billion would come from obligation limitations, according to Senate Democrats’ summary of the bill.

The Federal Aviation Administration would receive $20.1 billion, about $1 billion more than its current funding level. The money would allow the FAA to hire “1,800 new controllers, improving training facilities at the air traffic controller academy, and addressing the reliability of critical IT and telecommunications legacy systems,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Federal Highway Administration would receive $63 billion, the Federal Railroad Administration would get $2.9 billion and the Federal Transit Administration would receive $16 billion.

“To address the rail safety deficiencies identified in the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment, the bill provides a $27.3 million increase for FRA’s safety and operations budget—meeting the President’s budget request for rail safety inspectors,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development would receive $70.1 billion that would go toward “rental assistance and self-sufficiency support for low-income working families, seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities; housing and services to homeless individuals; and support for economic and community development,” according to the Senate Republican summary.

Homeless Assistance Grants would increase in funding by $418 million to $4.05 billion. Community Development Block Grants would receive $3.3 billion in funding.

The Native American Housing Block Grant program would receive $1.3 billion, a “historic level of funding” that would “make significant progress in addressing the dire housing needs of Indian Country, where residents are nearly twice as likely to live in poverty and nearly three times more likely to live in overcrowded conditions compared to other U.S. households,” according to Senate Democrats’ summary.

The Transportation-HUD bill includes 306 pages of community projects, or earmarks, making it one of the more significant bills for lawmakers to receive funding for priority initiatives.

Those include $1 million for the William Way LGBT Community Center in Philadelphia, one of three projects that House Republicans stripped out of their original bill in July after initially approving them.

The bill didn’t include funding for the LGBT Center of Greater Reading in Pennsylvania, which was originally selected for $970,000 in funding, or for affordable senior housing at LGBTQ Senior Housing, Inc. in Massachusetts, which was on track for $850,000 in funding.

Attorneys general from Idaho, Kansas and Missouri wrote in a 32-page brief that allowing the mailing of mifepristone “encouraged and enabled private parties to evade the states’ laws" (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — Anti-abortion groups, attorneys general from 25 states and more than 140 members of Congress have signed on to dozens of briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court during the past two weeks, encouraging the justices to revert use and prescribing of the medication abortion pill mifepristone to what was in place prior to 2016.

The “friend of the court” briefs come just weeks before the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on March 26 in a case that stems from a lawsuit that sought to overturn approval of the pharmaceutical.

Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-abortion legal organization, filed the lawsuit on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians and Christian Medical & Dental Associations.

ADF’s latest brief in the case argues that because some patients who use medication abortion — a two-drug regimen that combines mifepristone with a second pharmaceutical, misoprostol — will have complications, anti-abortion doctors will have to violate their religious beliefs to provide medical care to those women.

“It’s not hard to see why doctors who consider abortion objectionable are harmed when they must complete a chemical abortion—even if the child is no longer alive,” ADF wrote in the 84-page brief. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said that nothing requires doctors and other health care providers with conscientious objection to abortion to treat patients facing complications from medication abortion, but that isn’t sufficient, ADF said.

“FDA insists that nothing forces Respondent doctors to perform the procedures they deem objectionable,” ADF wrote. “But this ignores that FDA expressly relies on doctors like Respondents to treat emergent and life-threatening complications from abortion drugs … and that Respondents facing these emergency situations must act immediately.”

Changes the FDA made since 2016 to when and how mifepristone can be prescribed and distributed “create a substantial risk that Respondent doctors will see more women suffering emergency complications from abortion drugs, which threaten to inflict several concrete harms,” ADF wrote.

Those changes include:

• Extension of the maximum gestational age a patient can use mifepristone to 10 weeks, up from the prior approval of seven weeks.

• Health care providers qualified to prescribe medications, like physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners, can now prescribe mifepristone, instead of only doctors.

• Patients no longer needed to attend three, in-person doctor’s office appointments to complete a mediation abortion regimen.

• Providers can now prescribe the medication via telehealth and have it delivered through the mail.

Earlier ruling

All of that would change if the Supreme Court decides to agree with a ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said in August 2023 that the FDA’s prescribing guidelines should go back to what was in place before the changes began in 2016.

The federal government appealed that decision, leading to the current case before the Supreme Court, Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

States Newsroom earlier reported on briefs submitted in late January by abortion rights supporters, major medical organizations, pharmaceutical groups and Democratic lawmakers supporting access to mifepristone.

The medical groups wrote that since mifepristone was approved in 2000, “hundreds of medical studies and vast amounts of data have confirmed its safety and efficacy as part of this two-drug regimen.”

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the medical organizations added. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

Members of Congress, state AGs file briefs

A total of 145 members of Congress from 36 states, who opposed access to mifepristone remaining as it is today, submitted their own 39-page brief in the case, calling on the Supreme Court to limit access.

“Since 2016, the FDA has only required adverse events reporting for deaths resulting from chemical abortion drugs; reporting is otherwise voluntary,” the members of Congress wrote, making the argument that reports are not required for injuries or impairment. “This action was not only arbitrary and capricious, but it also raised safety concerns for women seeking chemical abortion drugs.”

The FDA’s decisions in 2016 and 2021 to change prescribing guidelines for mifepristone, they wrote, “exceeded its congressionally authorized power.”

Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming submitted a 28-page brief in the case, pressing for changes.

The state attorneys general argue that the FDA’s decisions to change prescribing guidelines since 2016 “push constitutional bounds.”

“Those actions test the separation of powers, sap federalism, and take important decisions from the people,” they wrote. “This Court should therefore exercise searching review of those actions and reject the FDA’s plea for deference.”

The attorneys general wrote that because some states have severely restricted or banned abortion access or implemented requirements for mifepristone use in addition to what the FDA allows, the availability of the pharmaceutical erodes states’ rights.

“The FDA’s actions undermine these laws, undercut States’ efforts to enforce them, and thus erode the federalism the Constitution deems vital,” the attorneys general wrote. “Given these harms to federalism, this Court should view the FDA’s actions with skepticism.”

More arguments

Attorneys general from Idaho, Kansas and Missouri wrote in a separate 32-page brief they “have an exceptionally strong interest in the outcome of this case.”

They wrote the FDA’s decisions, especially allowing the mailing of mifepristone, have “encouraged and enabled private parties to evade the States’ laws.”

“Beginning in summer 2023, organizations started shipping abortion drugs into all 50 States in large quantities in an attempt to evade state laws,” the three attorneys general wrote.

Students for Life of America —  an organization that aims “to abolish abortion and provide policy, legal, and community support for women and their children” — wrote in its 32-page brief that the FDA has “failed to consider the impact Mifepristone could have on the environment, specifically on endangered species or listed habitats.”

Before the FDA approved the pharmaceutical, they claim, it should have consulted with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Students for Life called on the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk, who issued a stay that would have removed mifepristone from the market.

That ban on access to the drug should remain in place until “the FDA conducts the proper consultation with the Services,” they wrote.

“The FDA reviewed only the impact that packaging, production waste, and pharmaceutical waste would have on the environment, failing to examine the impact the excretion of Mifepristone itself would have on the environment,” Students for Life wrote. “Further, the assessment underestimated the number of chemical abortions due to Mifepristone, which are today the most popular form of abortion.”

(Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on a bipartisan vote passed a short-term funding extension Thursday intended to give lawmakers a bit more time to wrap up work on the annual spending bills — trying to dodge a shutdown despite election year politics and narrow margins.

The stopgap spending bill, sometimes called a continuing resolution, or CR, would keep funding mostly flat for programs funded in six of the full-year bills through March 8 and for programs in the other six bills through March 22. That means Congress will face another deadline just next week for action.

The House voted 320-99 to approve the stopgap bill, which now goes to the Senate, where any one lawmaker can slow down the approval process, pushing it past the Friday midnight deadline.

A Senate failure to send the bill to President Joe Biden before then would result in a partial government shutdown for the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Veterans Affairs.

Other agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration and military construction projects, would also be closed except for essential staff until a stopgap bill is enacted.

“While at the time of passing our last continuing resolution I had hoped we would not need this measure, we owe it to the American people to do our due diligence in reaching the end of this process,” the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, said on the House floor. “I appreciate the respectful bipartisan cooperation that took place to put forward this continuing resolution and move us closer to the finish line.”

GOP Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee, an appropriator, acknowledged that many of his Republican colleagues would be upset with another CR, but he noted the slim majority in the GOP and that the bill gives Congress more time to pass the remaining appropriations bills.

“We are where we are,” he said. “This negotiation has been difficult, but to close the government down at a time like this would hurt people who should not be hurt.”

Border security 

Republicans like Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona and Bob Good of Virginia expressed their frustration about border security, and said House Republicans have not leveraged the threat of shutting down the federal government to push for changes in immigration policy.

“We just keep spending money and we keep the policies that are in place,” Biggs said.

House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana said during a Thursday press conference that the bill texts for the first package of six spending bills will be released this weekend and members will be given at least 72 hours to read the bills before voting.

“This is a bipartisan agreement in the end, but it sticks to the numbers, the agreement on spending, it does not go above that,” Johnson said. “It will increase a bit, defense spending, but there will be real cuts to non-defense discretionary spending.”

Johnson added that after the remaining appropriations bills are done by the March 22 deadline, he wants to quickly move on to fiscal year 2025, as well as other issues, such as immigration.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, said Thursday morning the only way for Congress to accomplish anything during divided government is through bipartisanship.

“This agreement is proof that when the four leaders work together, when bipartisanship is prioritized, when getting things done for the American people takes a high priority, good things can happen, even in divided government,” Schumer said. “And I hope this sets the stage for Congress to finish the appropriations process in a bipartisan way very soon.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said he appreciated the “commitment to see this process through and make good on this essential governing responsibility.”

“As I said earlier this week, government shutdowns never produce positive outcomes. That’s why Congress is going to avoid one this week,” McConnell said. “Leaders in both parties and both houses have agreed to a plan that would keep the lights on while appropriators complete their work and put annual appropriations bills on a glide path to becoming law.”

Congress has used a series of these stopgap funding measures to extend its deadlines for passing the dozen annual appropriations bills after failing to meet an Oct. 1 deadline.

Deep disagreements

House Republicans and Senate Democrats have had fundamental disagreements about spending levels and the policy that goes into the bills for months.

Those differences began after Biden submitted his budget request for fiscal year 2024 in March 2023, starting off the annual process.

The disputes appeared to abate a bit after Biden and then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy reached agreement on total spending levels in May 2023 at the same time they brokered a bipartisan agreement to address the nation’s debt limit.

House GOP appropriators moved away from that agreement after McCarthy experienced pressure from especially conservative members to significantly cut spending on domestic programs below the agreement.

The original batch of House spending bills also included dozens of very conservative GOP policy initiatives, drawing rebukes from Democrats and impeding the path toward a final bipartisan agreement.

A faction of far-right House Republicans ousting McCarthy of California in early October and then spending weeks disagreeing about who should lead them also delayed the process.

Johnson, after becoming speaker, renegotiated the spending levels for defense and domestic discretionary programs with Biden in January, starting off the process of merging the GOP bills from the House with the broadly bipartisan bills approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The spending deal sets spending on defense programs at $886.3 billion and provides $772.7 billion for non-defense discretionary spending.

Congressional leaders and the four lawmakers that lead the Appropriations committees in both chambers announced Wednesday they’d reached final agreement on six bills and had an agreement for another stopgap spending bill to bridge the gap.

Those bills, which will make up the first so-called “minibus,” include Agriculture-FDA, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, Interior-Environment, Military Construction-VA and Transportation-HUD.

March 22 deadline

The remaining six bills, the toughest to negotiate, haven’t yet garnered bipartisan, bicameral agreement, but the statement said they “will be finalized, voted on, and enacted prior to March 22.”

That spending package is supposed to include the Defense, Financial Services and General Government, Homeland Security, Labor-HHS-Education, Legislative Branch and State-Foreign Operations government funding bills.

Should Congress approve all dozen of the bills before the March 22 final deadline, and Biden signs them, that would place lawmakers 174 days behind their deadline.

That would be the latest members have completed work on all the bills since fiscal 2017, when they wrapped up work 216 days into the fiscal year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Congress wrapped up work on all the bills during fiscal 2018 by March 23, but that was 173 days behind their deadline. The difference between this fiscal year and then is due to leap day.

The process of funding the government is expected to start anew on March 11 when Biden submits his budget request for fiscal 2025.