WASHINGTON — New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez will temporarily step aside as chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee following a federal indictment for conspiracy to commit bribery and other charges.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer made the announcement Friday afternoon, saying in a written statement that “Senator Menendez has rightly decided to step down temporarily from his position as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee until the matter has been resolved.”

“Bob Menendez has been a dedicated public servant and is always fighting hard for the people of New Jersey. He has a right to due process and a fair trial,” Schumer said.

Maryland Democratic Sen. Ben Cardin, who is next in line to chair the Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that he encourages “everyone to allow the legal process to move forward without prejudice.”

“Senator Bob Menendez entered the U.S. Senate only one year ahead of me,” Cardin said. “We served in the House of Representatives together for nearly a decade. He has left his mark on American diplomacy and national security as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, especially, as Chair.”

“Senator Menendez has a right to respond aggressively in court to the current charges, and I am confident that he will do so,” Cardin added.  Cardin announced in May he will retire at the end of his current term in 2024; New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is the next Democrat in line on the committee.

Federal prosecutors indicted Menendez on Friday with conspiracy to commit bribery, conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, and conspiracy to commit extortion under the color of official right. His wife, Nadine Menendez, was also charged with federal crimes.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams for the Southern District of New York said that “between 2018 and 2022, Senator Menendez and his wife engaged in a corrupt relationship with Wael Hana, Jose Uribe and Fred Daibes – three New Jersey businessmen who collectively paid hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes, including cash, gold, a Mercedes-Benz and other things of value – in exchange for Senator Menendez agreeing to use his power and influence to protect and enrich those businessmen and to benefit the Government of Egypt.”

The 39-page indictment included photographs of thousands of dollars in cash stuffed into clothing as well as gold bars.

Menendez defended himself against the charges in a written statement, saying the “excesses of these prosecutors is apparent.”

“They have misrepresented the normal work of a Congressional office,” Menendez said. “On top of that, not content with making false claims against me, they have attacked my wife for the longstanding friendships she had before she and I even met.”

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F25%2Fmenendez-steps-down-temporarily-as-u-s-senate-committee-chairman-amid-federal-charges%2F by Jennifer Shutt

A friend once asked me why more doctors don’t speak out against laws restricting health care access and delivery, like those imposed on abortion access and gender affirming care. This was a tough question for me. As someone who regularly speaks out against the enactment of these dangerous and restrictive laws, I was surprised at first – then I realized that they are right. Doctors are not being very loud in expressing their opposition to these proliferating laws limiting people’s bodily autonomy and doctors’ ability to provide quality, evidence-based care. This is not because we are not concerned — it’s because, too often, our employers discourage us from speaking out, even in our patients’ best interest.

Evidence shows that the vast majority of doctors are opposed to political attacks on health care. A recent study by University of Wisconsin – Madison’s Collaborative for Reproductive Equity found that more than 75% of surveyed Wisconsin doctors support access to abortion; virtually all of them displayed some level of concern over the impact of abortion restrictions on the doctor-patient relationship. In 2021, nine in ten doctors suggested that women’s health in Wisconsin would worsen with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Thankfully, some doctors are speaking up. In Wisconsin over 300 health care professionals signed a letter urging voters to support Supreme Court Justice Janet Protaziewicz when she was running for her seat, and in Michigan 2,000 voiced support for a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights. 

However, if so many are concerned about these emerging health care threats, why aren’t more speaking out? The answer is simple: the vast majority of doctors are employees who must answer to their employers. Unlike in the past when most were in private solo or small group practice, in 2020, 70% of doctors were employed by hospitals or corporations with only 15% in solo practice. The percentage of physicians as employees has steeply increased from years past, driven, in part, by the increasing federal regulations and documentation requirements as well as the pressures to contract with insurance companies making solo or small group practice impractical or even impossible.

As employees, doctors are subject to a set of behavior expectations in regards to the media, as anything can reflect on the corporate entity they work for. Corporations would rather keep stakeholders happy than rock the boat. Thus, administrators and leaders often propose that doctors take “a middle path” in response to politically charged issues, prioritizing neutrality.

Free speech remains legally protected so that private citizens may give their opinions, but employed doctors must clarify that they’re speaking as individuals and not for their employers when they give their opinion on public policy or legislation. Even with this attestation, many doctors fear their employer may be unhappy over their advocacy. 

I have personal experience and knowledge of physicians being reprimanded by their employers for voicing their opinions about health care policy and legislation. We face immense pressure to keep our heads down and stay silent because of our concern that our employment will be put on the line if we speak out. Additionally, we lose some credibility as advocates when we have to hide our academic or work credentials when speaking with the media.

While HIPAA laws rightfully protect a patient’s privacy, doctors have witnessed ramifications for sharing stories that do not reveal any identifying information about their patients. An example of this is the experience of Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician, who spoke to the media about the legal abortion care she provided to a 10-year-old victim of rape denied care in Ohio. She was censured and fined by Indiana’s state medical board as a result even though she did not violate HIPAA laws.

I applaud the courage of the doctors who are speaking out against the ever-growing threats to health care. But those who do speak up are not the outliers in their opinions. We represent a majority of physicians who hold similar views but cannot voice them. Doctors are trusted by our patients and our communities. We must be allowed to advocate for our patients and communities, and not be constrained by corporate neutrality.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F25%2Fmore-physicians-need-to-speak-out-against-attacks-on-health-care-and-employers-need-to-let-us%2F by Dr. Ann Helms

In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers are threatening to impeach both the state’s election administrator, who is highly regarded nationally, and a state Supreme Court justice despite a ruling by the state’s judicial commission that the justice had done nothing wrong — effectively nullifying a recent statewide election she won, Democrats say.

In North Carolina, a bill that would give the legislature control of state and local election boards — potentially allowing lawmakers to overturn results — could soon become law.

And Alabama continues to defy the U.S. Supreme Court by refusing to draw a new congressional district with a Black majority.

Other states are seeing efforts by politicians to gain a political advantage by curtailing the power of voters.

It’s all part of a burst of anti-democratic activity at the state level, as Republican lawmakers and officials in recent weeks have run roughshod over long-standing norms of good government — and sometimes the clear will of voters — in order to maximize their party’s political clout.

Much of this procedural extremism has aimed to protect GOP gerrymanders — when lawmakers use their power to draw district lines to advantage their side — reflecting the sky-high stakes attached to the redistricting process.

But to those working to protect democracy, it’s a reminder that, for all the deserved attention to national threats — the attempted coup of Jan. 6, 2021, the looming danger of election subversion next year — some of the most explicit efforts to undermine the popular will have for years been happening in the states.

Indeed, experts say any scheme to thwart a free and fair national election in 2024 would likely center on corrupting one or more state-level election systems — just as was attempted in 2020.

“We should call this what it is: an effort to lay the groundwork to subvert the will of the voters in future elections,” said Joanna Lydgate, the CEO of the pro-democracy group States United Action. “While the focus is often on the national picture, our elections are run by the states. That means we need to keep shining a light on state-level efforts that undermine our democracy. It’s the only way to shut it down.”

‘An attempt to nullify an election’

Wisconsin has generated the biggest headlines lately. In September, the GOP-controlled Senate voted to oust Meagan Wolfe as the head of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Wolfe, a respected and nonpartisan elections official who had been appointed to her post by the commission in 2018, was the target of false conspiracy theories about illegal voting during the 2020 election. A recent hearing on whether to remove her became a platform for election deniers making debunked fraud claims.

Wolfe has refused to step down.

“The Senate’s vote today to remove me is not a referendum on the job I do but rather a reaction to not achieving the political outcome they desire,” Wolfe said after the vote. “The political outcome they desired is to have someone in this position of their own choosing that would bend to those political pressures.”

Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has filed a lawsuit to stop the removal, claiming the Senate lacks the authority for it.

A group of Republican lawmakers is now circulating a resolution to impeach Wolfe.

Wisconsin’s Republican lawmakers are also considering impeaching Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who was elected in April by a resounding 11-point margin.

Though the state’s judicial elections are officially nonpartisan, candidates typically are open about their political leanings in order to win the support of a major party. Protasiewicz, a liberal, was backed by Democrats, while her conservative opponent was supported by the GOP.

Lawmakers have cited Protasiewicz’s campaign-trail comments that the state’s legislative maps  — which are being challenged in a case set to come before the state Supreme Court — are “rigged.” But other justices have similarly voiced opinions on hot-button issues without facing repercussions.

The state’s Judicial Commission has said the complaints against Protasiewicz have no merit.

Wisconsin’s legislative maps are among the most heavily gerrymandered in the country — a 2020 Harvard study ranked them as the worst, on par with Jordan, Bahrain, and the Congo. They’ve consistently given the GOP large majorities — currently 22-11 in the Senate and 64-35 in the House — despite the state tilting slightly Democratic in most recent statewide races.

The court appears poised to strike down the maps and order fairer districts to be drawn, threatening Republicans’ hold on power. But impeaching Protasiewicz would leave the court evenly divided between liberals and conservatives, meaning the gerrymandered maps — and the GOP’s large majorities — would be much more likely to survive.

Ben Wikler, the chair of the state Democratic Party, has called the impeachment threat “a totally unconstitutional attempt to nullify the last election and effectively abolish judicial independence in Wisconsin.”

Wisconsin’s legislative leaders have often pushed the envelope to gain a political advantage. When Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, was first elected in 2018, lawmakers immediately passed a measure to weaken his power.

But going after Protasiewicz just months after her comfortable election win may not be popular with voters — potentially making it a bridge too far for some lawmakers.

“I think people are likely upset — she was elected by a wide margin in a free and fair election,” said Edgar Lin, the Wisconsin policy advocate and counsel for Protect Democracy, which works to preserve fair elections. “And that spans across the political spectrum. Many people in red districts voted for her.”

That reality has legislative leaders exploring other solutions. Last week, House Speaker Robin Vos, a Republican, unveiled new legislation that he said would establish a fair and nonpartisan redistricting process. But Evers rejected the plan, saying it would still ultimately leave lawmakers in charge.

Not that impeachment is off the table. Vos last week appointed a panel of former Supreme Court justices to study the issue and report back — a move widely seen as a delaying tactic. He didn’t reveal the panel’s members, but one former justice reported to be on it is a conservative who donated to Protasiewicz’s opponent in the election.

‘The power to decide contested elections’

But when it comes to protecting gerrymandered maps, perhaps no state has gone further than Alabama.

Back in June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that found Alabama’s congressional map discriminated against Black voters, and that ordered the state to draw an additional Black-majority district, or something close to it. Only one of the map’s seven districts was majority-Black, even though Black people are about 27% of the state’s population.

Instead, in a striking act of defiance, Alabama drew a new map that still had only one Black-majority district. On Sept. 5, a federal court struck down the new map, saying it was “deeply troubled that the state enacted a map that the state readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires.”

Now, Alabama has appealed that ruling back to the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for a delay that will allow it to use the discriminatory map next year.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, whose office has led the case, was one of a group of state attorneys general who urged the U.S. Supreme Court to block the certification of electors in the 2020 presidential election. He has refused to say that President Joe Biden was “duly elected.”

Meanwhile, North Carolina lawmakers are advancing a bill — it passed the House Tuesday — that would authorize the GOP-controlled legislature to appoint state and local election board members. Currently, that’s the role of the governor, Democrat Roy Cooper.

Cooper has said he’ll veto the measure. But because Republicans enjoy super majorities in both chambers, thanks to gerrymandered maps, they can override his veto.

Currently, the governor appoints all five members of the state board, though no more than three can be from one party. County boards are also split 3-2 in favor of the governor’s party.

The legislation would create even-numbered boards, with lawmakers from each party picking half the members. Republicans argue that structure will encourage bipartisanship.

But critics say it would likely mean frequent deadlocks. One result, voting rights advocates fear, could be to prevent counties from expanding the number of early voting sites — something Republicans have strongly opposed.

Even more worryingly, the boards might refuse to certify election results, which could send the issue to the courts or the legislature, raising the threat of subversion. North Carolina provided former President Donald Trump with his narrowest margin of victory in 2020, and could be pivotal again next year.

In a recent op-ed, Cooper called the bill a “backdoor attempt to limit early voting and consolidate the legislature’s quest for the power to decide contested elections.”

This is just the latest Republican effort to reduce Cooper’s power over elections since he was elected in 2016.

It comes not long after the legislature passed a bill that would make voting more difficult, especially targeting mail-in voting. Cooper vetoed the measure but Republicans are expected to override the veto.

Cleta Mitchell, the Trump lawyer who played a key role in the effort to overturn the 2020 election, met with lawmakers drafting the bill.

For good measure, the legislature also released a draft of the state budget Sept. 20 that includes a provision exempting lawmakers from the state’s public records law. One ethics watchdog called the measure, which is expected to become law, “a devastating blow to North Carolinians’ right to know what their elected officials are doing.”

And last month, the state’s Judicial Standards Commission launched an investigation into Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls, the court’s only Black woman.

Earls, a Democrat, was asked in an interview why the lawyers arguing before the court are disproportionately white men. She responded by talking about implicit bias and saying that white men “get more respect” and are “treated better” at the court.

Earls has sued the commission, claiming the investigation violates her free speech rights.

‘This would open the door to monsters’

The events in Wisconsin, Alabama, and North Carolina have generated national headlines. But gambits by lawmakers in other states have flown further under the radar.

In Ohio, the Supreme Court has ruled five times that the state’s current legislative maps are unconstitutional gerrymanders favoring Republicans. But the bipartisan commission that’s supposed to draw fair maps waited 16 months before reconvening last week.

It has made almost no progress, because GOP legislative leaders spent the first week infighting over who would be co-chair. When they finally did name one this week, the commission met and Republicans used their 5-2 advantage to establish a proposed working map that could lead to more Republican seats and fewer competitive districts.

Having missed an initial deadline for maps for Friday, Sept. 22, the commission is now crunching the public input part of the process into a few days.

Lawmakers’ goal appears to be to run out the clock and ram through skewed maps with little public scrutiny. Because the Supreme Court now has a right-wing majority, it’s expected to green-light whatever lawmakers come up with.

Last month, a bid by the GOP-controlled legislature to make it harder for Ohioans to amend the state constitution was overwhelmingly defeated by voters.

In Florida, a subtler scheme is underway. Acting on a request from the speaker of the House, the state Supreme Court last month created a commission to study changing the way prosecutors and judges are elected.

Advocates of criminal justice reform say the goal is a judicial gerrymander that would undercut the power of Black voters and make it much harder to elect reform prosecutors of the kind that Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has targeted.

“Judicial redistricting in Florida would almost certainly be a near-fatal blow against the reform prosecutor movement in the state,” one prominent reform advocate has written.

The kind of power grabs that are currently playing out in the states aren’t entirely new. Many of the extreme gerrymanders that lawmakers are now fighting to preserve were first enacted over a decade ago.

But today, advocates say, these efforts are even more dangerous for democracy. That’s because, by giving lawmakers more power over elections or over their state’s judicial system, many of these schemes strengthen and reinforce the ultimate threat of outright election subversion.

“If they can impeach someone successfully to stop them from ruling in a way they don’t like, what will they do after the 2024 election?” asked Wikler, the Wisconsin Democratic chair, referring to the threat to impeach Protasiewicz. “It was one vote in our state Supreme Court that prevented the 2020 election from being overturned in Wisconsin. And they know who the justices were, so they could just suspend them. This would open the door to monsters that I don’t think they’d be able to control.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F25%2Fanti-democratic-moves-by-state-lawmakers-raise-fears-for-2024-election%2F by Zachary Roth

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Superintendent Jill Underly defended diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and rejected the politicization of public schools in her annual State of Education address last week.

Underly’s address came as Wisconsin state lawmakers have clashed over schools in recent weeks. Republican lawmakers have focused their efforts on cultural issues, while Democrats have called for pulling back from publicly funded private school vouchers and greater investments in public education. 

During her address, Underly called classrooms “some of the most inclusive and equitable places in our state,” despite, she said, “the push from some leaders to try and homogenize learning in a way that is just not reflective of historical or current reality, nor of a child’s lived experience.” 

The comments come in a year that DEI has become a controversial issue nationally and in Wisconsin. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos recently said that he would try to withhold pay raises from 34,000 at UW System schools unless the universities cut positions that promote diversity, equity and inclusion on campuses. 

“This is a good moment to remember that the curriculum — which reflects the diversity of the human struggle in progress — is in fact, reflective of the history of this country, and affirming the lives of our Black, Indigenous and students of color matter. It’s not political, it’s a statement of fact,” Underly said. “Also it bears remembering that the safety — the safety of all kids —  is a requisite for every kid, and creating safety for LGBTQ+ kids is not controversial. It’s the bare minimum.”

Underly said hope for the future “keeps us going and working toward a better world despite all the mess that tries to derail us.” She added that directly addressing what she called “the mess” — referring to political battles that have engulfed schools recently — is an important step for policymakers in Wisconsin.

Underly spoke about DPI’s work with lawmakers and other stakeholders this year to pass a bill that is meant to improve the quality of reading instruction in the state. 

That bill, passed by state lawmakers and signed by Evers this year, is meant to revamp the way that reading is taught in the state so that students focus more heavily on the “science of reading” — an approach that emphasizes phonics and learning to sound out letters and phrases. 

“Was it messy? Yes, it was. Would I have preferred it to have not been? Of course,” Underly said. “However, we did get the reading bill that we know will make a difference for kids? 100%.”

Underly said that she believes in public schools and emphasized that public education isn’t partisan. 

“There is reasoning behind why our school board elections are in the spring with other races outside of political parties,” Underly said, citing the Wisconsin Constitution’s guarantee of free, uniform public schools for all children. 

While state lawmakers came to agreement on the reading law, they have continued to diverge along party lines on other education issues this year, including diversity programs. Recently, Republican lawmakers have refocused on increasing “parental choice” by expanding taxpayer financing for private schools and targeting diversity instruction in schools, while Democrats have called for phasing out private school vouchers and investing in public schools, including teachers and students.

Republicans resurrect culture war bills 

On the same day Underly delivered her address, Sen. Van Wanggard (R-Racine) and Reps. Robert Wittke (R-Racine) resurrected a bill that would establish a “Parent Bill of Rights” in Wisconsin. 

The bill would establish a number of “rights” for parents including the right to review instructional materials and outlines used by schools, to receive notice when a “controversial subject” is going to be discussed in school, to opt a child out of a class or instructional materials for religious or personal conviction reasons and to review medical records and opt a child out of medical requirements. 

The bill would also give parents the final say on certain aspects of school life including which names and pronouns are used to address a child while at school and religious instruction of a child. 

“Parent rights have been disrespected regarding the education, healthcare, and overall well-being of their children,” the bill authors wrote in a co-sponsorship memo. “A parent bill of rights is a critical response to this experience by too many families.”

A similar measure passed the Legislature in 2022 but Gov. Tony Evers vetoed it.

Transgender Parent and Non-Binary Advocacy caucus members Rep. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) and Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee) condemned the legislation in a statement on Thursday. 

“It is a bill designed, in part, to bully teachers, school boards, and students about race and gender. It is hard to know which element of this bill is the most egregious, but certainly forbidding students to determine their preferred name and pronouns in school is right at the top of the list,” Ratcliff stated. 

Noting that Evers would likely veto the legislation if it passes the Republican-led Legislature, Ratcliff added that the Republican Party is “obsessed with its war on marginalized and vulnerable communities, including the transgender and non-binary communities.”

The bill is similar to legislation that Republicans have introduced on a national level and that was signed by Florida Gov. Ron Desantis. 

The bill also follows the resurrection of two bills by Republican lawmakers this year that would bar transgender girls and women from competing in female athletics.

Democrats’ bills would phase out school vouchers and invest in public education

Democratic lawmakers, in contrast, have renewed calls for investment in public schools by introducing sweeping legislation that would reform education in Wisconsin. 

The first bill package introduced by Democrats would phase out private school choice programs and require increased transparency and accountability from the statewide, Racine and Milwaukee voucher programs. 

The focus on voucher programs and public school investment comes in a year when the state budget passed by the Republican-led Legislature and signed by Evers included the largest ever increase in state aid to independent charter schools and private school vouchers. Public school advocates also criticized the budget for not including an inflationary increase for the state’s public schools. 

“We want to make sure that there is a very clear voice that we are putting out there that says that we should be looking at other options,” Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) said at a press conference about the bills related to the choice program. “Wisconsin cannot afford to fund two competing school systems. We need urgent action to stop the unchecked expansion of the voucher programs and independent charter schools.”

The second package of bills includes raising the special education reimbursement from 33.3% to 90% — the current reimbursement rate for private voucher schools — and prohibiting discrimination against students with disabilities at voucher schools. Another bill would authorize DPI to award grants to school boards that decide to terminate their use of a nickname, logo, mascot or team name associated with an American Indian tribe or American Indian. 

Lawmakers said the bills would address action items that are “most needed for public school staff and educators to meet the needs of students both in and out of the classroom.” 

“The right to public education is enshrined in Wisconsin’s Constitution and through this process we’ve created schools where every student belongs,” the lawmakers said in a statement. “That means that they can go to school and know that they will not experience discrimination like they might if they were to attend a voucher school, seek justice in their school’s mascot, and know that their teachers and administrators have what they need to support them in the educational journey.”

A Super PAC that supports Democrats, created by the owner of the Minocqua Brewing Company, has also announced that it plans to sue the Legislature in an attempt to stop public funding for private school vouchers in Wisconsin.

Larson and Rep. Kristina Shelton (D-Green Bay) also introduced a package of bills meant to address the crisis in hiring and retaining quality educators in Wisconsin. A recent Wisconsin Policy Forum report found that the teacher turnover rate — or the rate at which teachers are moving school districts or leaving the profession altogether — has risen sharply.  

The lawmakers said that the bills would address this issue by treating teachers as professionals. 

The bills include establishing that teachers’ base pay should not be less than the amount that state legislators make. Teachers that have worked for at least 10 school years would be required to receive no less than the base and an additional $15,000. The package of bills also includes mandating teacher preparation periods, requiring that school boards include a nonvoting teacher representative and establishing a grant program that would encourage people to pursue a career in teaching. 

“The importance of reestablishing professionalism in our education workforce cannot be overstated; this is especially true when looking at future generations of educators in Wisconsin,” the lawmakers said in a statement. “Respect, support, and appreciation must be reestablished to mitigate the detrimental effects of de-professionalization in the teaching field.”

Lawmakers are circulating the bills for cosponsorship, however, they are unlikely to progress in the Republican-led Legislature.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F25%2Fstate-schools-superintendent-legislators-deliver-divergent-messages-on-education%2F by Baylor Spears

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans were unable for a third time Thursday to begin debate on the Defense funding bill, throwing another wrench into Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s leadership tenure.

The 212-216 vote that rejected the rule for the $826 billion Defense spending measure was unexpected, coming less than a day after House GOP lawmakers gathered in a room in the Capitol basement to broker a path forward.

Arizona Rep. Eli Crane and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene switched their votes to oppose the rule, after voting on Tuesday to adopt it. Colorado Rep. Ken Buck and South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman both supported adoption of the rule on Thursday after opposing it earlier in the week.

Other Republicans voting no included Andy Biggs of Arizona, Dan Bishop of North Carolina and Matt Rosendale of Montana. The rule would have allowed the House to begin officially debating the bill and voting on nearly 200 amendments.

The failed vote led McCarthy to reverse course on the schedule, with many lawmakers heading home for the weekend on Thursday instead of sticking around for votes throughout the weekend. McCarthy had said exactly one week ago that “When we come back, we’re not going to leave. We’re going to get this done.”

The update to the House schedule sent around Thursday afternoon said “ample notice will be given ahead of any potential votes tomorrow or this weekend.”

The stalemate and change of plans does not bode well for efforts to approve the short-term spending bill that’s needed to stave off a partial government shutdown when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1.

McCarthy has yet to unify his members amid deep disagreements about how much the federal government should spend and what policy restrictions should be included in full-year bills as well as the stopgap measure.

The ongoing dispute has ground the House chamber to a halt as McCarthy searches for a way to unify his razor-thin majority without turning to Democrats to pass a bipartisan bill.

Arkansas Republican Rep. Steve Womack, a senior appropriator, said Thursday that his fellow lawmakers need to accept the Senate will re-work any partisan bills the House sends over.

“Remember, this is all going to go to the Senate, so people don’t need to get real hot and bothered over where we are today,” Womack said. “It’s going to be based on what comes back and whether or not it can get to the floor.”

Discussions among House Republicans, he said, are likely to become “heated” once the Senate re-works a short-term spending bill and sends it back to the House for a final approval vote.

Infighting and political differences within the House Republican Conference have so far prevented GOP lawmakers from reaching agreement on their opening offer on a short-term spending bill, which is also called a continuing resolution or CR.

Defense spending bill falters

Before the Thursday vote, McCarthy had been somewhat optimistic the House could finally approve the rule and begin debate on the full-year Defense spending measure.

Greene wrote on X that she switched her vote “because they refused to take the war money for Ukraine out and put it in a separate bill.” The rule approved 184 amendments for floor debate and votes, including one from Florida’s Matt Gaetz that would have prohibited “security assistance for Ukraine.”

Crane wrote on X on Thursday that he believes votes “on CRs, omnibus bills and raising the debt ceiling should never take place.”

“I’m going to do whatever I can to change the way this place works,” he wrote.

Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, chair of the Rules Committee, switched his vote on Thursday to a no vote after voting yes a few minutes earlier. The procedural maneuver allows him to bring the rule back up for a vote at a later time.

The whip count error appeared to be a surprise for Defense Appropriations Chair Ken Calvert, a California Republican; ranking member Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat; and staff — all of whom were seated at the tables on the House floor ready to lead debate on the measure.

The Republican table held thick white binders as well as a large accordion folder, all filled with paperwork and the Democratic table was stacked with paperwork as well. It’s highly unlikely that staff would have brought all the materials needed to debate the bill and amendments if they knew the rule vote was going to fail.

‘At least a short-term shutdown’

In addition to strong disagreement among House Republicans about the full-year spending bills, the House GOP Conference has yet to solidify a plan to pass the short-term stopgap spending bill that’s needed to hold off a funding lapse.

Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson, chair of the Interior-Environment spending subcommittee, said he expects there will be “at least a short-term shutdown” as the House and Senate try to reach agreement on a short-term spending bill.

“That’s a lot of work to do in a very short time,” Simpson said.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry, a Pennsylvania Republican, said Thursday that he hasn’t seen details on any new short-term spending bills that might come to the floor.

“I haven’t seen the language of any additional CR,” he said.

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran, the top Republican on the Commerce-Justice-Science spending panel, said he’s “hoping the House chaos is set aside.”

“I keep saying I’m not voting for another CR again, but I keep voting for them because the outcome is worse with a shutdown,” Moran said. “But this just needs to be resolved in the House. I don’t think there’s a problem in the Senate that would cause a shutdown.”

Any short-term spending bill will have to be bipartisan in order to get through the Democratically controlled Senate where at least 60 votes are needed to limit debate on legislation. That could take more time than lawmakers have before Oct. 1, he said.

“Nothing about this is conducive to getting something done quickly and we’ve got to start with something that’s acceptable,” Moran said.

‘We’re in kind of a desperate situation’

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, said he’s unsure when the Senate would take up a short-term government funding bill since House Republicans haven’t announced what they’ll vote on or when they’ll vote to pass a CR.

“The House is a wreck and the speaker doesn’t appear to have a path using his majority to solve a serious national problem, so we’re in kind of a desperate situation,” Durbin said.

The House Appropriations Committee has approved 10 of its 12 spending bills for the fiscal year slated to begin Oct. 1, but the House has approved just one of those so far. All of the bills are partisan and written below the spending levels that McCarthy and President Joe Biden agreed to in the debt limit law.

The Senate spending panel has approved all dozen of its annual bills on broadly bipartisan votes, though efforts to pass a three-bill spending package halted last week after Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson objected to leaders scheduling amendment votes. 

The biggest hurdle for Congress at the moment is gaining support for the continuing resolution that would extend government funding past the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. That short-term spending bill is regularly relied on to give the House and Senate more time to negotiate final versions of the dozen annual spending bills.

Failing to approve a short-term spending bill before the start of fiscal 2024 on Oct. 1. would begin a funding lapse, leading wide swaths of the federal government to shut down.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F22%2Fshutdown-inches-closer-as-u-s-house-gop-fails-to-pass-defense-bill-lawmakers-exit-d-c%2F by Jennifer Shutt

WASHINGTON — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Thursday traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers to reiterate the need for continued aid to support his country’s fight against the Russian invasion, even as the U.S. faces a partial government shutdown as soon as the end of the month.

“If we don’t get the aid, we will lose the war,” Zelenskyy said to senators, according to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

There’s bipartisan support in the Senate to approve the White House request of $24 billion in supplemental aid to Ukraine, including from top Senate appropriators. However, some Republican senators are lukewarm and others are firmly opposed. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has not openly expressed support as he grapples with gaining enough votes from his party to avoid a shutdown.

“It is very clear that if we were to have a government shutdown, or pass a CR without Ukrainian aid, the damage that would occur on Ukraine’s campaign would be devastating,” Schumer, a New York Democrat, said.

CR refers to a continuing resolution, the name for the short-term government funding bill that lawmakers must pass to give themselves more time to pass the full-year spending bills.

U.S. House Republicans are currently struggling to produce and pass a short-term plan to fund the government past the end of the month. If a stopgap spending bill is not passed by the Sept. 30 deadline, then a partial shutdown will commence.   

Congress was not Zelenskyy’s only stop while in Washington. He met with President Joe Biden and U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin.

During an open-press portion of his meeting with Zelenskyy, Biden excoriated Russia for aggressing on its neighbor, commended Ukraine’s response and committed further U.S. security and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

Biden announced the next tranche of military aid, comprising artillery, ammunition, anti-tank weapons and the first U.S. Abrams tanks to be sent to Ukraine. The U.S. president said he was confident Congress would fund further aid.

“I’m counting on the good judgment of the United States Congress,” he said in response to a reporter’s question following the meeting. “There’s no alternative.”

Zelenskyy thanked Biden, Congress and the American people for their solidarity over the 575 days of the war.

He told Biden the new defense package “has exactly what our soldiers need.”

The Ukrainian president said he would soon announce a new agreement that would boost his country’s defense capabilities.

Following an earlier Thursday meeting with Zelenskyy, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, said during a press conference that Congress should specify the specific weapons that Zelenskyy asked for in the $24 billion supplemental funding bill, such as F-16 jets and long-range artillery.

“This man has moral courage and moral clarity,” McCaul said of Zelenskyy. “The will of the Ukrainian people is far stronger than the will of the Russians.”

McCaul said that McCarthy is supportive of sending aid to Ukraine. McCaul said he believes McCarthy can get more Republicans on board.

Zelenskyy described his meetings with members of both parties in Congress as “frank, constructive dialogue,” according to a pool report.

Vance leads letter of opposition

After a Wednesday closed-door Senate briefing about Ukraine, more than two dozen Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the White House opposing any more funding.

Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance posted the letter to X, formerly known as Twitter, that was signed by 28 Republicans.

“Yesterday at a classified briefing over Ukraine, it became clear that America is being asked to fund an indefinite conflict with unlimited resources. Enough is enough. To these and future requests, my colleagues and I say: NO,” according to the letter.

Those GOP senators who signed onto the letter include Vance, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Braun of Indiana, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Mike Lee of Utah and Roger Marshall of Kansas.

House GOP members who signed onto the letter include Reps. Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs and Eli Crane of Arizona; Dan Bishop of North Carolina; Bill Posey, Anna Paulina Luna, Greg Steube and Byron Donalds of Florida; Chip Roy, Michael Cloud, Lance Gooden, Beth Van Duyne, and Roger Williams of Texas; Clay Higgins of Louisiana; Harriet Hageman of Wyoming; Bob Good of Virginia; Warren Davidson of Ohio; Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma; Andy Ogles of Tennessee; Russell Fry and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina; and Mary Miller of Illinois.

House Republicans and a handful of Senate Republicans who did not sign the letter have also been critical about overall government spending and providing additional support for Ukraine.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said he is opposed to approving aid to Ukraine because he doesn’t see Ukraine defeating Russia anytime soon.

“It sounds to me like this is a stalemate,” he said. “What’s our plan? What are we going to do? Are we just going to spend hundreds of billions indefinitely? What is the plan here? I just don’t know.”

U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, was not moved.

“What you’d expect,” he said. “It’s the same points being made, there’s nothing particularly new.”

However, U.S. Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota said that Zelenskyy “struck a very bipartisan note.”

“His main message was one of gratitude for the help that the United States (has) provided to Ukraine and … ask that we continue that support so that Russia doesn’t overrun Ukraine,” Smith said.

$24 billion request

The White House is asking for Congress to approve $24 billion for several types of aid to Ukraine.

The request asks Congress to provide $13.1 billion for the Defense Department, $8.5 billion for the State Department and USAID, $2.3 billion for the Treasury Department, $100 million for the Department of Health and Human Services and $68 million for the Energy Department.

Top Senate appropriators Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, both said they believe Ukraine should receive aid.

Collins said she asked Zelenskyy what would be the impact if Ukraine only received military aid rather than economic and humanitarian aid.

“He explained that all of their budget is going to aid their soldiers and sailors and that if they did not get the humanitarian and economic aid, they would lose their school teachers, their health care professionals would leave, and … additional people would literally die,” Collins said.

In a statement, Murray said that Ukraine’s defense against Russia is at a critical point.

“[I]t’s so important that Congress continues our strong and bipartisan support for Ukraine, so they have the resources and weapons they need to defend themselves against Putin’s invasion,” she said.

Congress has approved four aid packages for Ukraine since the war began in February of last year, totaling $110 billion.

The first aid package was approved in March 2022 and included $13.6 billion. The second assistance package was approved in May 2022 and provided $40 billion, and the third relief package was approved in September 2022 for more than $12 billion. A fourth supplemental package was approved in December 2022 for $45 billion.

McConnell: ‘Support for Ukraine is not charity’

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has pressed for additional military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine to help bolster democracy in Eastern Europe.

“At the risk of repeating myself, American support for Ukraine is not charity,” McConnell said in a statement. “It’s an investment in our own direct interests — not least because degrading Russia’s military power helps to deter our primary strategic adversary, China.”

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a senior GOP member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, said that Zelenskyy laid out to senators what would happen if U.S. support were to vanish.

“Russia would make very substantial gains,” he said.

U.S. Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon said Zelenskyy’s meeting showed how this is a pivotal moment.

“He did a very, very good job of explaining what the stakes are for Ukraine, for Europe, and for the democracies of the world if you allow an authoritarian to get away with it,” Kaine said.  “He also pointed out that actually giving into Putin is the thing that creates the forever war.”

U.S. Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said Zelenskyy made a “very urgent case for the United States to stay engaged and to continue with support.”

Pentagon spokesman Brigadier Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters Thursday that the Defense Department will continue to seek bipartisan support for Ukraine aid in Congress.

“It’s important, again, to re-emphasize why Ukraine matters,” he said. “In addition to helping our Ukrainian partners to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression, the implications, not only on European security, but also on U.S. and international security are very stark … If Russia were to succeed in eliminating Ukraine as a nation, they won’t stop there.”

Making school bomb shelters more comfortable

Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska was also in Washington, where she visited students, faculty and staff at Georgetown University.

She spoke about the ways education has been affected by the conflict, with young children spending their first day of school learning in bomb shelters.

“I’m looking at you and I can see our students,” Zelenska said. “I don’t think you are that different. And you have one particular trait in common, that’s caring and empathy and wanting to change things for the better.”

She said that her foundation in Ukraine has three priority areas: humanitarian assistance, support for education and support for health care. One of the foundation’s projects is aimed at making bomb shelters for schools in Ukraine more comfortable. So far, eight schools are part of the program.

“If there is no bomb shelter in a school, children cannot attend it, school will just not open, so a lot of children do distance learning,” Zelenska said.

Zelenska was presented with the Hillary Clinton Award for advancing women, peace and security. She was awarded this recognition virtually last year.

Zelenska stressed that if her country were to be defeated, it would not just impact Ukraine and its people, but threaten everyone.

“If you have power, if you have opportunities and resources, you can do anything you want,” Zelenska said. “You can be a tyrant, you can seize other countries, other territories, and then these situations mean that no one is safe in this world.”

“To turn a blind eye means to turn your back to your own future,” she said.

Jennifer Shutt and Jacob Fischler contributed to this report.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

originally published at https%3A%2F%2Fwisconsinexaminer.com%2F2023%2F09%2F22%2Fif-we-dont-get-the-aid-we-will-lose-the-war-zelenskyy-asks-congress-to-help-ukraine%2F by Ariana Figueroa