Schumer Announces Early 2022 Vote on Biden Safety Net Legislation

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday the Senate will vote “very early in the new year” on President Joe Biden’s social safety net spending plan, expressing a need to push forward after a key Democrat said he could not support it.

In a letter to Democratic colleagues, Schumer cited frustration and disappointment among members of his caucus as Senator Joe Manchin’s opposition to the roughly $2 trillion package scuttled hopes of Democratic leaders to get the legislation approved before the December 25 Christmas holiday. 

“However, neither that delay, nor other recent pronouncements, will deter us from continuing to try to find a way forward.We simply cannot give up.We must and we will keep fighting to deliver for working families,” Schumer said. 

The House of Representatives has already approved a version of the bill.Schumer said the Senate will vote on a “revised version” of that legislation “and we will keep voting on it until we get something done.” 

Schumer’s letter comes a day after Manchin, who discussed the legislation at length with Biden last week, told the Fox News cable network’s “Fox News Sunday” show, “If I can’t go home and explain it to the people of West Virginia, I can’t vote for it. And I cannot vote to continue with this piece of legislation.”

“I just can’t,” Manchin said. “I’ve tried everything humanly possible. I can’t get there. This is a ‘no’ on this legislation.”

Manchin has expressed concerns about the size and scope of the package.His vote is essential for Democrats in the politically divided Senate as they try to pass one of the key elements of Biden’s legislative agenda.None of the 50 Republicans in the 100-member chamber supports the plan to expand health care for older Americans, provide universal pre-kindergarten classes, authorize new funding to combat climate change and offer more financial support for low-income Americans.

Democrats had hoped to push through the legislation on a 51-50 vote before Christmas, with Vice President Kamala Harris providing the tie-breaking vote.

The White House said Manchin last week offered a framework for a compromise on the legislation and “promised to continue conversations in the days ahead, and to work with us to reach that common ground.”

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in a statement Sunday that if Manchin’s comments “indicate an end to that effort, they represent a sudden and inexplicable reversal in his position, and a breach of his commitments to the President and the Senator’s colleagues in the House and Senate.”

She rebuffed Manchin’s claims that the legislation would add to the surge in consumer prices in the United States, the highest in nearly four decades, or add to the country’s long-term debt, now more than $29 trillion, because the new spending would be paid for with higher taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

One of the key Senate architects of the legislation, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, reacted angrily to Manchin’s refusal to support fellow Democratic colleagues and vote for it. Sanders said Manchin “doesn’t have the guts” to take on special business interests who would be impacted most by the legislation.

Sanders told the Cable News Network’s “State of the Union” show he wants the Senate to vote on the measure anyway, even if it is headed to defeat, to force Manchin to publicly account for his vote.

“He’s going to have a lot of explaining to do with the people of West Virginia,” Sanders said. “Let him vote ‘no’ and explain it to the world.” 

Some information for this report came from Reuters. 

Johnny Isakson, Former Georgia Republican US Senator, Dies 

Johnny Isakson, an affable Georgia Republican politician who rose from the ranks of the state legislature to become a U.S. senator known as an effective, behind-the-scenes consensus builder, died Sunday. He was 76.

Isakson’s son John Isakson told The Associated Press that his father died in his sleep before dawn at his home in Atlanta. John Isakson said that although his father had Parkinson’s disease, the cause of death was not immediately apparent. 

“He was a great man and I will miss him,” John Isakson said. 

Johnny Isakson, whose real estate business made him a millionaire, spent more than four decades in Georgia political life. In the Senate, he was the architect of a popular tax credit for first-time home buyers that he said would help invigorate the struggling housing market. As chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, he worked to expand programs offering more private health care choices for veterans.

Isakson’s famous motto was, “There are two types of people in this world: friends and future friends.” That approach made him exceedingly popular among colleagues. 

“Johnny was one of my very best friends in the Senate,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Sunday. “But the amazing thing about him was that at any given time, approximately 98 other Senators felt the same way. His infectious warmth and charisma, his generosity, and his integrity made Johnny one of the most admired and beloved people in the Capitol.” 

In 2015, while gearing up to seek a third term in the Senate, Isakson disclosed that he had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s, a chronic and progressive movement disorder that had left him with a noticeably slower, shuffling gait. Soon after winning reelection in 2016, he underwent a scheduled surgery on his back to address spinal deterioration. He frequently depended on a cane or wheelchair in later years. 

In August 2019, not long after fracturing four ribs in a fall at his Washington apartment, Isakson announced he would retire at year’s end with two years remaining in his term. 

In a farewell Senate speech, he pleaded for bipartisanship at a time of bitter divisions between Republicans and Democrats. He cited his long friendship with U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and civil rights hero, as an example of two men willing to put party aside to work on common problems.

“Let’s solve the problem and then see what happens,” Isakson said. “Most people who call people names and point fingers are people who don’t have a solution themselves.”

Lewis, who died last year, saluted Isakson on the House floor in 2019, saying, “We always found a way to get along and do the work the people deserve.” 

After the speech, Lewis walked over to hug a hobbling Isakson, saying, “I will come over to meet you, brother.” 

An Atlanta native, Isakson failed in his first bid for elected office: a seat on the Cobb County Commission in 1974. Two years later, he was elected to the Georgia House of Representatives, becoming the only Republican to beat a Democratic incumbent in Georgia the same year Jimmy Carter was elected president. Isakson served 17 years in the state House and Senate. Always in the minority in Georgia’s General Assembly, he helped blaze the path toward the GOP ascendancy of the 2000s, fueled by Atlanta’s suburban boom. By the end of Isakson’s career, some of those same suburbs were swinging back toward Democrats.

“As a businessman and a gifted retail politician, Johnny paved the way for the modern Republican Party in Georgia, but he never let partisan politics get in the way of doing what was right,” Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp said in a statement. 

Isakson suffered humbling setbacks before ascending to the Senate. In 1990, he lost the race for governor to Democrat Zell Miller. In 1996, Guy Millner defeated him in a Republican primary for Senate before Millner lost to Democrat Max Cleland. 

Many observers chalked up the loss to Isakson not being tough enough on abortion. In the primary race, Isakson ran a television advertisement in which he said that while he was against the government funding or promoting abortion, he would “not vote to amend the Constitution to make criminals of women and their doctors.” 

“I trust my wife, my daughter and the women of Georgia to make the right choice,” he said.

He later changed his mind on the contentious issue.

Isakson’s jump to Congress came about in 1998, when U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich decided not to seek reelection. Isakson won a 1999 special election to fill the suburban Atlanta seat. 

He finally made it to the U.S. Senate in 2004 when he defeated Democrat Denise Majette with 58% of the vote. He served with Georgia senior Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a close friend and classmate from the University of Georgia. 

Isakson was viewed as a prohibitive early favorite to succeed Republican Sonny Perdue in the governor’s mansion in 2010. But he opted instead to seek a second term in the Senate. While there, he developed a reputation as a moderate, although he rarely split with his party on key votes. 

He was a lead negotiator in 2007 on immigration legislation that President George W. Bush backed but ultimately abandoned after it met strong resistance from the right. Chambliss and Isakson were booed at a Georgia Republican Party convention that year over their immigration stance. 

Isakson supported limited school vouchers and played a major role in crafting Bush’s signature education plan, the No Child Left Behind Act. He also pushed an unsuccessful compromise bill on the politically charged issue of stem cell research that would have expanded research funding while also ensuring that human embryos weren’t harmed.

That deal-making approach has fallen out of favor for many voters, but Isakson’s lineage remains a presence in Georgia politics. State Attorney General Chris Carr was the former senator’s chief of staff. “When I was a young man just getting started in politics, I wanted to be like Johnny Isakson,” Carr said Sunday. 

Democratic Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock said “all of Georgia” grieves Isakson’s death. Warnock, who took over Isakson’s old seat after defeating Republican Kelly Loeffler in a January runoff, had a special connection to Isakson, who attended an annual service in honor of the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. The church’s pulpit was King’s and later became Warnock’s. Warnock also has continued Isakson’s tradition of an annual barbecue lunch for all senators. 

Isakson’s “model of public service is an example to future generations of leaders on how to stand on principle and make progress while also governing with compassion and a heart for compromise,” Warnock said Sunday. 

Isakson graduated from the University of Georgia in 1966 and joined his family-owned company, Northside Realty in Cobb County, a year later. It grew to one of the largest independent residential real estate brokerage companies in the country during his more than 20 years at the helm. Isakson also served in the Georgia Air National Guard from 1966 to 1972. 

He is survived by his wife, Diane, whom he married in 1968; three children and nine grandchildren. 

 

Biden Pledges Fight for Voting Rights, Police Reform 

President Joe Biden pledged Friday to fight for stalled voting rights and police reform legislation, addressing graduates of South Carolina State University amid the harsh reality that months of talks with lawmakers have failed to move the measures closer to becoming law.

Biden spoke at the historically Black school a day after conceding that his nearly $2 trillion social and environmental bill was unlikely to become law this year, as he had hoped, due to continued disagreement among fellow Democrats. Republicans unanimously oppose the spending.

Wearing a black gown as he delivered the December commencement address, the president bemoaned GOP opposition that has kept voting rights bills from advancing in the 50-50 Senate following passage by the Democratic-controlled House. He blamed “that other team, which used to be called the Republican Party,” for refusing to even allow the bills to be debated.

“But this battle’s not over,” Biden said. “We’re going to keep up the fight until we get it done.”

‘Sacred right to vote’

Biden’s vow to keep pushing to protect what he called “the sacred right to vote” comes as the NAACP and similar groups have grown frustrated with the White House over the lack of progress on the issue. Voting rights is a priority for Democrats heading into next year’s midterm elections after Republican-controlled legislatures passed a wave of restrictive new voting laws.

Biden pledged similar advocacy for police reform, another issue important to the Black community after a series of killings of Black men by police, including George Floyd’s death last year after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck for about nine minutes.

The House passed a sweeping police reform measure earlier this year in response to Floyd’s killing, but months of negotiations among a bipartisan group of senators failed to produce a bill.

Biden vowed to keep pressing for police reform, too.

“The fight’s not over,” he said at the alma mater of House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress and South Carolina’s only Democrat in the delegation. Clyburn, who sat on stage with Biden, accepted his degree — earned 60 years earlier — from the president, a longtime friend.

Pitch to students

In his speech, Biden at times sounded more like a candidate as he used the appearance before a predominantly Black audience to stress how his administration is working to improve their economic and educational standing, from increasing funding for historically Black colleges and universities to fighting housing discrimination.

Black voters, in South Carolina and other states, were a crucial part of the coalition that helped Biden win election as president.

He also touched on the infrastructure bill he recently signed into law, including the promise of thousands of new jobs, but avoided discussing his centerpiece social welfare and environmental bill. That measure remains bottled up in the Senate, largely because of opposition from a fellow Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and facing an uncertain fate next year, when Democrats need accomplishments to show as they campaign for reelection in the November midterms.

Biden also pledged to help stamp out hate and racism, referenced the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol carried out in hopes of subverting his election, and talked about his appreciation for historically Black colleges and universities. He noted that key members of his team had graduated from historically Black schools, including Vice President Kamala Harris, a Howard University alum.

“You can defeat hate, but you can’t eliminate it,” Biden said. “It just slides back under a rock and, when given oxygen by political leaders, it comes out ugly and mean as it was before. We can’t give it any oxygen. We have to step on it.”

He did not discuss legislative strategy, including how he would turn hard Democratic opposition to the $2 trillion plan into support. All he offered was the promise to keep fighting — the same advice he gave the graduates.

Biden told them their “secret power” is the ability to understand the injustices and complications of the world, with the enduring legacies of racism leaving Black Americans at a disadvantage in home ownership and economic mobility.

Why the delay for Clyburn?

There were no December ceremonies when Clyburn graduated in 1961, so he received his diploma by mail. Instead of addressing this year’s graduates, as had been planned, Clyburn joined the procession of students on stage to receive his degree from Biden, whom he invited to deliver the commencement address.

The president visited at a fraught time for his agenda, with the future of his $2 trillion social and environmental spending package in doubt. While Democrats had hoped to make progress on the bill before Christmas, continued disagreements among lawmakers have all but halted negotiations, and Biden himself has signaled Democrats should shift their focus to passing a voting rights bill — another heavy lift in the evenly divided Senate.

On Friday, Senate Democrats huddled privately, as they have for weeks, discussing with parliamentary experts ways to adjust the chamber’s filibuster rules so they can push past Republican opposition and pass voting and election bills ahead of the 2022 midterms. No decisions have been reached, but senators insist they’re making progress.

Biden and Clyburn had been planning a gathering in South Carolina, Clyburn told reporters this week, and they figured Friday’s ceremony would suffice. The meeting was significant for both, in that it was Biden’s first time as president in South Carolina, where Clyburn’s public support is credited with boosting Biden to the Democratic presidential nomination.

On the cusp of South Carolina’s first-in-the-South primary, after struggling through less than stellar performances in other early nominating contests, Biden secured a public endorsement from Clyburn, an awaited signal for many Black voters that Biden would be the candidate to stand up for their interests.

Biden subsequently bested chief rival Bernie Sanders on Super Tuesday and claimed the nomination before defeating Republican incumbent Donald Trump in the general election. 

US Senate Parliamentarian Deals Democrats Blow on Immigration

Democrats must drop an effort to let millions of immigrants remain temporarily in the U.S. from their expansive social and environment bill, the Senate parliamentarian decided Thursday, dealing the latest blow to a longtime priority of the party, migrant advocates and progressives.

The opinion by Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate’s nonpartisan arbiter of its rules, all but certainly means Democrats will ultimately have to pull the proposal from their 10-year, roughly $2 trillion package. The measure carries health care, family services and climate change initiatives, mostly paid for with higher taxes on corporations and the rich, that are top priorities for President Joe Biden.

When the Senate considers the overall legislation — which is currently stalled — Democrats are expected to try reviving the immigration provisions, or perhaps even stronger language giving migrants a way to become permanent residents or citizens. But such efforts would face solid opposition from Republicans and probably a small number of Democrats, which would be enough for defeat in the 50-50 chamber.

MacDonough’s opinion was no surprise — it was the third time since September that she said Democrats would violate Senate rules by using the legislation to help immigrants and should remove immigration provisions from the bill. Nonetheless, it was a painful setback for advocates hoping to capitalize on Democratic control of the White House and Congress for gains on the issue, which have been elusive in Congress for decades.

MacDonough’s finding was the second defeat of the day inflicted on Democrats’ social and economic package. Biden was also forced to concede that Senate work on the massive overall bill would be delayed until at least January after his negotiations stalled with holdout Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat who wants to further cut and reshape the legislation.

“We will advance this work together over the days and weeks ahead,” the president said in a statement.

Democrats’ latest immigration proposal would have let an estimated 6.5 million immigrants in the U.S. since at least 2010 without legal authorization apply for up to two five-year work permits. The permits would let them hold jobs, avoid deportation and in some instances travel abroad without risking their residency here. Applicants would have to meet background checks and other requirements.

Immigration advocates and their Democratic Senate allies have said they will continue seeking a way to include provisions helping migrants in the legislation, but their pathway is unclear.

“Disappointed. And we’re considering what options remain,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, told reporters about the parliamentarian’s ruling.

‘Substantial policy changes’

Democrats are using special rules that would let them push the overall bill through the Senate by a simple majority vote, not the 60 votes legislation usually needs to end debate and move forward. GOP opposition means the immigration provisions Democrats want would not survive as a free-standing bill.

But under those same rules, such bills can’t have provisions that are driven more by policy changes than by cuts or increases in the federal budget.

The parliamentarian makes that call. Her opinion said Democrats had failed that test because the disputed language would have changed a program that currently awards work permits sparingly into one where it would be mandatory to issue the permits to migrants who qualify for them.

“These are substantial policy changes with lasting effects just like those we previously considered and outweigh the budgetary impact,” MacDonough wrote. Earlier this year, she rejected two Democratic proposals that would have each created a chance for permanent legal status for 8 million migrants.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the bill’s immigration provisions would end up costing the government around $111 billion over 10 years, largely because of federal benefits immigrants would qualify to receive by gaining legal status.

The rejected plan would have created no new pathway for those getting work permits to remain in the U.S. permanently. But the budget office estimated last month that of 6.5 million migrants who would ultimately get the temporary permits, around 3 million would later gain permanent residency because their new status would remove some obstacles in that process.

Many progressives and migrant supporters have long urged Democrats to vote to overrule the parliamentarian, whose opinion is advisory and whose decisions senators seldom overturn. Advocates resumed pressuring the party to do so after MacDonough’s ruling.

“This is a fight about racial justice,” said Greisa Martinez Rosas, executive director of United We Dream, an immigrant rights group. Citing the strong support Democrats usually receive from Hispanic voters, she said advocates would accept no excuses for inaction.

“It’s time for Democrats to deliver on their promises; they must disregard today’s recommendation” by the parliamentarian and add citizenship provisions to the bill, she said.

Overturning the ruling

It seems unlikely that Democrats would have the unanimous support they would need to overturn MacDonough’s opinion. Manchin, one of Congress’ more conservative Democrats, has said he would not vote to overturn a ruling of the parliamentarian “on every issue.”

Even so, top Democrats signaled Thursday evening that they would try.

“We strongly disagree with the Senate parliamentarian’s interpretation of our immigration proposal, and we will pursue every means to achieve a path to citizenship” in the social and environment bill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Durbin and four Latino Democratic senators said in a statement. They added, “We stand with the millions of immigrant families across the country who deserve better and for whom we will not stop fighting.”

The latest proposal fell well short of Biden’s initial plan this year to give the 11 million immigrants in the U.S. without legal authorization a way to seek permanent residency and even citizenship.

Even so, it would have been Congress’ most sweeping move in decades to help migrants in this country. A 1986 immigration overhaul helped an estimated 2.5 million immigrants win permanent residency.

Despite Control of Congress, Democrats’ Agenda Appears Stalled 

Heading into what analysts expect to be their last year with unified control of Congress and the presidency for the foreseeable future, it remains unclear whether the Democratic Party will be able to capitalize on the opportunity to see key legislative priorities enacted into law. 

This week, just as Democratic lawmakers were celebrating a pair of significant victories on Capitol Hill, two members essential to their tenuous hold on the Senate majority signaled that they will block the party’s two biggest legislative priorities. That raised questions about how the Democrats will spend the remainder of the 117th Congress. 

On Wednesday, reports began to emerge that talks between the White House and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin over President Joe Biden’s signature Build Back Better social and climate spending package had broken down. Democrats cannot afford to lose a single vote on the package, meaning that without Manchin’s support, the measure is as good as dead, given lockstep Republican opposition in the evenly-divided chamber. 

Also Wednesday, Arizona Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema said that she would not support an effort to alter Senate rules to allow the body’s Democrats to pass the Freedom to Vote Act, a package of voting rights measures, suggesting that that bill may also be doomed. 

Senate rules stymie Democrats 

The Democrats control 50 of the Senate’s 100 seats, and can rely on Vice President Kamala Harris to cast a deciding 51st vote in the event of a tie. However, because of the Senate’s filibuster rule, which requires a 60-vote majority to cut off debate on a subject, the Democrats are significantly constrained in their ability to pass legislation without significant Republican assistance. 

In the past few days, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer worked out an agreement with Senate Republicans to temporarily waive Senate filibuster rules in order to raise the nation’s debt limit and avoid a government default. Shortly thereafter, he brought the annual National Defense Authorization Act to the floor, where it passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis, 88-11. 

There is one well-known road around the filibuster: a process called budget reconciliation that allows a bill that fits certain parameters to be exempt from the filibuster. The Build Back Better Act is written in the form of a budget reconciliation bill, but that protection is only useful if the Democrats can retain all 50 of their members, meaning that Manchin’s refusal to support it is fatal to its chances of passage. 

No carve-out for voting 

Democratic senators pushing the voting rights legislation had hoped to convince the party to come together on a vote that would narrowly change the filibuster rules — something that can, ironically, be done with a simple majority — to allow the voting rights bill to pass with 51 votes. 

On Wednesday, however, Sinema’s office issued a statement indicating that while she supports the Freedom to Vote Act, she is not inclined to change the filibuster rule in order to pass it. The statement suggested that to do so would only invite wild swings in federal law in the future, whenever a party gains unified control of Congress and the White House. 

On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, criticized the suggestion that Democrats might do away with the filibuster in order to pass their agenda.

“Entire generations of statesmen would have seen … these unhinged proposals as Armageddon for our institutions,” he said.

So, now what? 

Experts are divided on exactly what the current impasse means for the remainder of the 117th Congress. Some, like Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, say they expect little legislative activity to take place. Sabato told VOA he expects Democrats to focus on tasks like filling vacant seats on federal courts, which they can do with a simple majority. 

“Judicial appointments are the one area where they really have been successful,” Sabato said. “They’ll fill every possible judgeship, as long as they maintain the 50-50 Senate. As long as they can do that, they’ll get something done that will have long-lasting effects.” 

Sabato said there is faint hope that there could be some bipartisan move toward regulating major social media firms, but he pointed out that while both parties are angry at companies like Facebook and Twitter, the parties don’t agree on the changes they would like to see implemented.

And in an election year when Republicans hope to take control of Congress, he added, there may be little incentive to cooperate.

“They could reach a compromise, but again, if Republicans are confident of gaining control of Congress — which they have every reason to be — why would they compromise when they have a good chance of getting everything they want when they’re in charge?” 

Biden can point to one major bipartisan victory, a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, which was signed into law last month, and addressed a long wish list of projects around the country sought by lawmakers of both parties. Since then, however, attracting Republican support or maintaining Democratic party unity on other major planks of Biden’s agenda has proved elusive. 

A more hopeful outlook 

William A. Galston, a senior fellow in the Brookings Institution’s Governance Studies program, told VOA that he still holds out hope that Democrats and Republicans in Congress will be able to find some common ground in the first half of 2022, before the looming midterm elections make cooperation a practical impossibility. 

“One possibility is that they will turn to issues that are less visible right now, but which may have a greater prospect of bipartisan support and therefore, success on the floor of the Senate,” Galston said. “There have been a number of bills, for example, dealing with supply chain issues. And it is at least possible that pieces of larger bills could be peeled off, the ones that are most likely to get support across party lines.” 

In particular, he pointed to a piece of legislation that passed the Senate following the cooperative efforts of Schumer and Republican Sen. Todd Young, of Indiana. The bill, called the United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, creates a Directorate for Technology and Innovation in the National Science Foundation.

Part of the new directorate’s mission would be to “to improve national competitiveness in science, research, and innovation” in order to support the goal of the administration’s national security strategy. 

“That would put us in a substantially better position to address some key looming challenges, including our competition with China,” Galston said. The bill has not progressed in the House of Representatives, he noted. However, he said, “I suspect very strongly that if the White House and leaders in both chambers got together, they could figure out how to unstick that bill.” 

US Senate Democrats Lack Unanimity on Biden’s Social, Climate Package

Democrats in the U.S. Senate appear to have one key holdout in their push to pass a major social and environmental bill before next week’s Christmas holiday.

The Associated Press, Reuters and other news organizations reported Wednesday that based on information from people familiar with ongoing negotiations, Senator Joe Manchin is objecting to a piece of the legislation that extends an expiring child tax credit program for one year.

He told reporters Wednesday that he has “always been for child tax credits” and that reports about his opposition to including them in the legislation were “a lot of bad rumors.”

Manchin has expressed his opposition to the total size of the package of programs advocated by President Joe Biden. Democrats initially pursued a $3.5 trillion plan before cutting it to about $2 trillion to try to ease passage.

The proposals include expanding health care programs, universal prekindergarten, clean energy investments, and cutting prescription drug costs. Democrats want to pay for them with tax increases on big corporations and the wealthy.

With only a narrow majority in the Senate, and Republicans opposed to the package, Democrats need all members of their caucus to support it.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had set a goal of getting approval by the Dec. 25 Christmas holiday.

White House deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters during a briefing Wednesday that the Biden administration is still hopeful of meeting that goal.

“We are optimistic that we will get this done before Christmas, and that is our focus, that is our hope, and that’s what we’re working towards,” Jean-Pierre said.

She said Biden and Manchin have had “two great conversations” this week.

When asked Wednesday if he believes the bill will be passed before the end of the year, Biden told a reporter: “I hope so. It’s going to be close.”

The child tax credit up for extension is an expanded program that sent families monthly checks beginning in July. Most received $300 for each child under the age of 6, and $250 for children ages 6-17.

Without an extension, the program would revert to its previous form, a credit of $2,000 per child when filing annual tax returns instead of receiving monthly checks.

Senate Democrats are also considering whether to prioritize voting rights legislation, which Republicans also opposed, as the year comes to a close.

“If we can get the congressional voting rights done, we should do it,” Biden told a reporter when asked about the issue Wednesday. “If we can’t, we got to keep going. There’s nothing domestically more important than voting rights. It’s the single-biggest issue.”

Some information for this report came from the Associated Press and Reuters. 

US Senate Passes $770 Billion Defense Bill, Biden’s Signature Next

The U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday for a version of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that authorizes $770 billion in defense spending — $25 billion more than requested by President Joe Biden —sending the measure to the White House for the president’s signature. 

The vote was 89-10, with strong support from both Democrats and Republicans for the annual legislation setting policy for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives passed it by 363-70 last week. 

Biden is expected to sign the bill, but the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment on its passage on Wednesday. 

The NDAA is closely watched by a broad swath of industry and other interests because it is one of the only major pieces of legislation that becomes law every year and because it addresses a wide range of issues. 

The NDAA has become law every year for six decades. 

Authorizing about 5% more military spending than last year, the fiscal 2022 NDAA is a compromise after intense negotiations between House and Senate Democrats and Republicans after being stalled by disputes over China and Russia policy. 

It includes a 2.7% pay increase for the troops, and more aircraft and Navy ship purchases, in addition to strategies for dealing with geopolitical threats, especially Russia and China. 

The NDAA includes $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, which provides support to Ukraine’s armed forces, $4 billion for the European Defense Initiative and $150 million for Baltic security cooperation. 

On China, the bill includes $7.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and a statement of congressional support for the defense of Taiwan, as well as a ban on the Department of Defense procuring products produced with forced labor from China’s Xinjiang region. 

It also includes an overhaul of the military justice system to take decisions on whether to prosecute cases of rape, sexual assault and some other major crimes out of the hands of military commanders. 

The change was a partial victory for activists because it did not strip military commanders of the authority to prosecute all felonies. It came after advocates led by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand waged a yearslong effort to change the system in response to the thousands of cases of sexual assault among service members, many of which are never prosecuted. 

The bill does not include some provisions included in earlier versions, notably one that would have required women to register for the military draft. The proposal had faced stiff opposition from a handful of socially conservative Republican lawmakers who thought it would erode traditional gender roles, threatening to stymie the entire NDAA. 

 

US House Votes 222-208 to Refer Contempt Charges Against Top Trump Aide

The U.S. House of Representatives has approved a resolution that calls on the Justice Department to formally charge Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, with criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to testify to the special committee investigating the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters. 

The resolution passed the Democratic-led House late Tuesday night by a vote of  222-208, with just two Republicans joining all Democrats voting in favor. The two Republicans, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Liz Cheney, serve on the special committee with seven Democrats that voted unanimously Monday to recommend that Meadows face criminal charges.  

Meadows handed over 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages to the nine-member House of Representatives committee investigating the violence by hundreds of Trump supporters at the Capitol 11 months ago. The trouble happened as lawmakers were certifying that Democrat Joe Biden had defeated Trump in his reelection bid.     

Meadows initially agreed to testify about his role before January 6 in trying to help Trump claim a second four-year term in the White House and his actions that day. Protesters, urged by Trump to “fight like hell” to keep him in office, stormed the Capitol, smashed windows and fought with police. Last week, Meadows changed his mind about testifying, citing Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to keep documents secret to inhibit the investigation.  

“If you’re making excuses to avoid cooperating with our investigation, you’re making excuses to hide the truth from the American people about what happened on January 6th,” Mississippi Representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the chairman of the special committee, told lawmakers during a debate before Tuesday night’s vote. 

Meadows served in the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from North Carolina from 2013 to 2020 before becoming Trump’s chief of staff. He is the first former congressman to be held in contempt since 1830.  

Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio condemned the resolution during the full House debate and defended his former colleague. “This is as wrong as it gets,” Jordan told lawmakers. “You all know it. But your lust for power, your lust to get your opponents, is so intense you don’t care.” 

Ahead of Monday’s committee vote, Cheney detailed text messages sent to Meadows as the January 6 attack on the Capitol unfolded with prominent conservative media figures and one of Trump’s sons urging Meadows to encourage Trump to do more to halt the actions of his supporters.

Cheney said the messages show Trump’s “supreme dereliction” and raised questions about whether through his inaction he sought to interrupt the congressional task of certifying the presidential election result showing that he lost. 

“These texts leave no doubt,” Cheney said. “The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol.”    

The House committee has already held another former Trump aide, Steve Bannon, in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to testify. Bannon was later indicted and, if convicted, could face up to a year in prison.    

The investigative panel late Sunday issued a 51-page report that showed Meadows was deeply involved in trying to keep Trump in office even though the former president had lost five dozen court challenges in various states contesting his election loss and numerous vote recounts in individual political battleground states all upheld Biden’s victories.     

State election officials often said there was no appreciable voter fraud, as Trump has alleged to this day, that would have changed the outcome in his favor.  

If Meadows had appeared for a deposition, the committee said it would have questioned him about numerous documents he provided.  

On Monday, Meadows said through his attorney that the committee’s referral was unwise, unfair and contrary to law, according to The Associated Press.  

Meadows said in an interview on the Fox News cable network late Monday the committee’s decision was “disappointing, but not surprising.” 

“This is about Donald Trump and about actually going after him once again,” Meadows said. 

In a November 7, 2020, email, the committee said that just days after Trump lost the election, Meadows discussed an effort to have state legislators in states Trump lost appoint electors supporting Trump rather than the pro-Biden electors a majority of voters had chosen.      

In text messages with an unidentified senator, Meadows discussed Trump’s erroneous view that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn the Electoral College vote count as lawmakers officially certified the state-by-state tally on January 6. Pence drew Trump’s ire as he refused to upend the Electoral College vote, which Biden won by a 306-232 margin, the same count Trump won by in 2016.     

A day before the riot occurred, Meadows said National Guard troops would be at the Capitol to “protect pro-Trump people.” Other emails touched on the rioting at the Capitol as it unfolded, with pro-Trump supporters shutting down the Electoral College vote count for hours before Biden was finally declared the winner in the early hours of January 7.     

The committee also said it wants to ask Meadows about claims he made in his new book, “The Chief’s Chief,” about his time in the White House with Trump.  

“Mr. Meadows has shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the Select Committee’s investigation across a variety of media platforms — anywhere, it seems, except to the Select Committee,” the panel wrote.     

In turn, Meadows has sued the committee, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.” 

The panel has interviewed nearly 300 witnesses and lawmakers linked in some way to the rioting or contesting of the election results. The committee says it is planning a series of hearings early next year to make public many of its findings.  

Some of the more than 600 people charged in the rioting, often identified by boasts on social media accounts of being inside the Capitol, have been sentenced to prison terms of a few months or, in more serious cases, to more than four years. But most of the criminal charges have yet to be adjudicated. 

Some information in this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 

US Senate Approves Boosting Debt Limit to $31.4 Trillion, Sends to House

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved raising the federal government’s debt limit by $2.5 trillion, to about $31.4 trillion, and sent it to the House of Representatives to pass and avert an unprecedented default. 

The 50-49 party-line vote follows a months-long standoff between Democrats and Republicans, with the latter seeking to force President Joe Biden’s party to raise the debt limit on its own from the current $28.9 trillion level, generating fodder for attack ads during the 2022 congressional elections. 

A deal last week between Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell, set the stage for Tuesday’s vote, bypassing normal Senate rules requiring at least 60 of the chamber’s 100 members to agree to advance most legislation. 

The Democratic-led House will also need to approve the bill before sending it to Biden for his signature. The chamber was expected to take the matter up later on Tuesday. 

Schumer said the increase would cover the government’s needs into 2023, through the November 8 midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. 

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen had urged Congress to hike the debt limit before Wednesday. 

Under the unusual deal worked out by Schumer and McConnell, and approved by both chambers last week, legislation raising the debt ceiling could be passed this one time in the Senate by a simple majority, which meant Democrats could get it through on their own. 

In the House, Republican Representative Jodey Arrington told the chamber’s Rules Committee he was disappointed that McConnell had agreed to the deal. The country’s debt level was at its highest since World War Two and “we ain’t in a war,” Arrington said. 

The committee’s chairman, Democrat Jim McGovern, responded: “I don’t normally have many nice things to say about Mitch McConnell, but I do think he understands that … not to allow this to go forward, it would be ruinous to our economy.” The committee then voted 9-4 to move the legislation to the House floor. 

The increase is needed in part to cover debt incurred during Republican Donald Trump’s presidency, when the debt rose by about $7.85 trillion, partly through sweeping tax cuts and spending to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Republicans, who oppose the debt ceiling increase and control half of the Senate’s 100 seats, have tried to link the vote to Biden’s $1.75 trillion “Build Back Better” bill to bolster the social safety net and fight climate change. 

“Every Senate Democrat is going to vote along party lines to raise our nation’s debt limit by trillions of dollars,” McConnell said in a speech before the vote. “If they jam through another reckless taxing and spending spree, this massive debt increase will just be the beginning.” 

But Schumer was upbeat, saying: “This is about paying debt accumulated by both parties, so I’m pleased Republicans and Democrats came together to facilitate a process that has made addressing the debt ceiling possible.” 

The debt ceiling fight and another self-created crisis, passing a bill to continue funding the government through February, occupied much of Congress’ time this month, and members in both chambers are now eager to begin long holiday breaks. 

It remains unclear if congressional Democrats will be able to meet Schumer’s other goal, passing Biden’s sweeping $1.75 trillion bill to bolster the social safety net and fight climate change, by Christmas. Deep disagreements within the party on the size and scope of the package have stalled that effort. 

 

Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Keep Tax Returns From Congress

A U.S. judge Tuesday dismissed a bid by former President Donald Trump to keep his tax returns from a House of Representatives committee, ruling that Congress’ legislative interest outweighed any deference Trump should receive as a former president. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden said in his ruling that Trump was “wrong on the law” in seeking to block the House Ways and Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. 

McFadden, who also said it was within the power of the committee’s chairman to publish the returns if he saw fit, put his ruling on hold for 14 days, allowing time for an appeal. 

Trump was the first president in 40 years not to release his tax returns as he aimed to keep secret the details of his wealth and the activities of his family company, the Trump Organization. 

The committee sued in 2019 to force disclosure of the tax returns, and the dispute lingers nearly 11 months after Trump left office. 

Trump lawyer Patrick Strawbridge told McFadden last month the committee had no legitimate reason to see the tax returns and had asked for them in the hope of uncovering information that could hurt Trump politically. 

House Democrats have said they need Trump’s tax returns to see if the Internal Revenue Service is properly auditing presidential returns in general and to assess whether new legislation is needed. 

McFadden, a Trump appointee, said the committee would be able to accomplish its stated objective without publishing the returns. 

He cautioned the panel’s Democratic chairman, Representative Richard Neal, that while he has the right to do so, “anyone can see that publishing confidential tax information of a political rival is the type of move that will return to plague the inventor.” 

Neither the committee nor Strawbridge immediately responded to requests for comments on the ruling. 

 

US House to Vote on Referring Contempt Charges Against Trump Aide

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote Tuesday on whether to refer charges of contempt of Congress against Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff, to the Justice Department for his refusal to testify about his role in trying to overturn Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election. 

A congressional committee made up of seven Democrats and two Republicans voted unanimously Monday to recommend that Meadows face criminal charges. 

Meadows said in an interview on the Fox News cable network late Monday the committee’s decision was “disappointing, but not surprising.” 

“This is about Donald Trump and about actually going after him once again,” Meadows said. 

Ahead of the committee vote Monday, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney detailed text messages sent to Meadows as the January 6 attack on the Capitol unfolded with prominent conservative media figures and one of Trump’s sons urging Meadows to encourage Trump to do more to halt the actions of his supporters. 

Cheney said the messages show Trump’s “supreme dereliction” and raised questions about whether through his inaction he sought to interrupt the congressional task of certifying the presidential election result showing that he lost. 

“These texts leave no doubt,” Cheney said. “The White House knew exactly what was happening at the Capitol.” 

Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Select Committee and a Democrat from Mississippi, said in his opening remarks, “Whatever legacy [Meadows] thought he left in the House, this is his legacy now.” Meadows is a former Republican representative from North Carolina.

Meadows handed over 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages to the nine-member House of Representatives committee investigating the violence by hundreds of Trump supporters at the Capitol 11 months ago. The trouble happened as lawmakers were certifying that Democrat Joe Biden had defeated Trump in his reelection bid.      

Meadows initially agreed to testify about his role before January 6 in trying to help Trump claim a second four-year term in the White House and his actions that day. Protesters, urged by Trump to “fight like hell” to keep him in office, stormed the Capitol, smashed windows and scuffled with police. Last week, Meadows changed his mind about testifying, citing Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to keep documents secret to inhibit the investigation.   

The House committee has already held another former Trump aide, Steve Bannon, in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to testify. Bannon was later indicted and, if convicted, could face up to a year in prison.         

The investigative panel late Sunday issued a 51-page report that showed Meadows was deeply involved in trying to keep Trump in office even though the former president had lost five dozen court challenges in various states contesting his election loss and numerous vote recounts in individual political battleground states all upheld Biden’s victories.      

State election officials often said there was no appreciable voter fraud, as Trump has alleged to this day, that would have changed the outcome in his favor.  

If Meadows had appeared for a deposition, the committee said it would have questioned him about numerous documents he provided.     

On Monday, Meadows said through his attorney that the committee’s referral was unwise, unfair and contrary to law, according to The Associated Press.  

In a November 7, 2020, email, the committee said that just days after Trump lost the election, Meadows discussed an effort to have state legislators in states Trump lost appoint electors supporting Trump rather than the pro-Biden electors a majority of voters had chosen.     

In text messages with an unidentified senator, Meadows discussed Trump’s erroneous view that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn the Electoral College vote count as lawmakers officially certified the state-by-state tally on January 6. Pence drew Trump’s ire as he refused to upend the Electoral College vote, which Biden won by a 306-232 margin, the same count Trump won by in 2016.      

A day before the riot occurred, Meadows said National Guard troops would be at the Capitol to “protect pro-Trump people.” Other emails touched on the rioting at the Capitol as it unfolded, with pro-Trump supporters shutting down the Electoral College vote count for hours before Biden was finally declared the winner in the early hours of January 7.      

The committee also said it wants to ask Meadows about claims he made in his new book, “The Chief’s Chief,” about his time in the White House with Trump.   

“Mr. Meadows has shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the Select Committee’s investigation across a variety of media platforms — anywhere, it seems, except to the Select Committee,” the panel wrote.     

In turn, Meadows has sued the committee, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”   

The panel has interviewed nearly 300 witnesses and lawmakers linked in some way to the rioting or contesting of the election results. The committee says it is planning a series of hearings early next year to make public many of its findings.     

Some of the more than 600 people charged in the rioting, often identified by boasts on social media accounts of being inside the Capitol, have been sentenced to prison terms of a few months or, in more serious cases, to more than four years. But most of the criminal charges have yet to be adjudicated.   

Some information in this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 

US House Panel Targeting Trump Aide Mark Meadows in Capitol Riot Probe

The congressional committee investigating the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol is poised Monday to recommend that Mark Meadows, former President Donald Trump’s White House chief of staff, be held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about his role in trying to overturn Trump’s loss in the 2020 presidential election.

Meadows handed over 6,600 pages of records taken from personal email accounts and about 2,000 text messages to the nine-member House of Representatives committee investigating the violence by hundreds of Trump supporters at the Capitol 11 months ago. The trouble happened as lawmakers were certifying that Democrat Joe Biden had defeated Trump in his re-election bid.

Meadows initially agreed to testify about his role before January 6 in trying to help Trump claim a second four-year term in the White House and his actions that day. Protesters, urged by Trump to “fight like hell” to keep him in office, stormed the Capitol, smashed windows and scuffled with police. Last week, Meadows changed his mind about testifying, citing Trump’s assertion of executive privilege to keep documents secret to inhibit the investigation.

The committee, with seven Democrats and two Republican Trump critics, has already held another former Trump aide, Steve Bannon, in contempt of Congress for his refusal to comply with a subpoena to testify. Bannon was later indicted and, if convicted, could face up to a year in prison.

 

The investigative panel late Sunday issued a 51-page report that showed Meadows was deeply involved in trying to keep Trump in office even though the former president had lost five dozen court challenges in various states contesting his election loss and numerous vote recounts in individual political battleground states all upheld Biden’s victories.

State election officials often said there was no appreciable voter fraud, as Trump has alleged to this day, that would have changed the outcome in his favor.

If Meadows had appeared for a deposition, the committee said it would have questioned him about numerous documents he provided.

In a November 7, 2020 email, the committee said that just days after Trump lost the election, Meadows discussed an effort to have state legislators in states Trump lost appoint electors supporting Trump rather than the pro-Biden electors a majority of voters had chosen.   

In text messages with an unidentified senator, Meadows discussed Trump’s erroneous view that then-Vice President Mike Pence had the power to overturn the Electoral College vote count as lawmakers officially certified the state-by-state tally on January 6. Pence drew Trump’s ire as he refused to upend the Electoral College vote, which Biden won by a 306-232 margin, the same count Trump won by in 2016.

A day before the riot occurred, Meadows said National Guard troops would be at the Capitol to “protect pro-Trump people.” Other emails touched on the rioting at the Capitol as it unfolded, with pro-Trump supporters shutting down the Electoral College vote count for hours before Biden was finally declared the winner in the early hours of January 7.

The committee also said it wants to ask Meadows about claims he made in his new book, “The Chief’s Chief,” about his time in the White House with Trump.

“Mr. Meadows has shown his willingness to talk about issues related to the Select Committee’s investigation across a variety of media platforms — anywhere, it seems, except to the Select Committee,” the panel wrote.

In turn, Meadows has sued the committee, asking a court to invalidate two subpoenas that he says are “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”

 

The panel has interviewed nearly 300 witnesses and lawmakers linked in some way to the rioting or contesting of the election results. The committee says it is planning a series of hearings early next year to make public many of its findings.

Some of the more than 600 people charged in the rioting, often identified by boasts on social media accounts of being inside the Capitol, have been sentenced to prison terms of a few months or, in more serious cases, to more than four years. But most of the criminal charges have yet to be adjudicated.

Court Rejects Trump’s Efforts to Keep Records from January 6 Panel

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against an effort by former President Donald Trump to shield documents from the House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol. 

In a 68-page ruling, the three-judge panel tossed aside Trump’s various arguments for blocking, through executive privilege, records that the committee regards as vital to its investigation into the run-up to the deadly riot aimed at overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election. 

Judge Patricia Millett, writing for the court, said Congress had “uniquely vital interests” in studying the events of January 6 and said President Joe Biden had made a “carefully reasoned” determination that the documents were in the public interest and that executive privilege should therefore not be invoked. Trump also failed to show any harm that would occur from the release of the sought-after records, Millett wrote. 

“On the record before us, former President Trump has provided no basis for this court to override President Biden’s judgment and the agreement and accommodations worked out between the Political Branches over these documents,” the opinion states.

It adds, “Both Branches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch and its constitutional role in the peaceful transfer of power.”

The appeals court ruled that the injunction that has prevented the National Archives from turning over the documents will expire in two weeks, or when the Supreme Court rules on an expected appeal from Trump, whichever is later. Lawyers for Trump can also ask the entire appeals court to review the case. 

“The privilege being asserted is not a personal privilege belonging to former President Trump; he stewards it for the benefit of the Republic,” the court wrote. “The interests the privilege protects are those of the Presidency itself, not former President Trump individually. And the President has determined that immediate disclosure will promote, not injure, the national interest, and that delay here is itself injurious.” 

The court also praised Biden’s “calibrated judgement” in working with Congress and the Archives to weigh privilege concerns, saying it “bears no resemblance to the ‘broad and limitless waiver’ of executive privilege former President Trump decries.” 

Biden had the committee defer its requests for some of the early documents that might have posed privilege claims, and officials expect more documents in subsequent tranches will be subject to the same outcome. 

The House committee and Trump representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. 

White House spokesman Mike Gwin said in response to Tuesday’s ruling, “As President Biden determined, the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield information that reflects a clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution itself.” 

Trump sued the House January 6 committee and the National Archives to stop the White House from allowing the release of documents related to the insurrection. Biden had waived Trump’s executive privilege claims as the current officeholder. 

At issue, the court said, is not that Trump “has no say in the matter” but his failure to show that withholding the documents should supersede Biden’s “considered and weighty judgment” that Congress is entitled to them. 

The National Archives has said that the records Trump wants to block include presidential diaries, visitor logs, speech drafts, handwritten notes “concerning the events of January 6” from the files of former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and “a draft Executive Order on the topic of election integrity.” 

New York City Lawmakers Pass Bill Giving Noncitizens Right to Vote

Noncitizens in New York City would gain the right to vote in municipal elections under a measure approved Thursday by the City Council that would give access to the ballot box to 800,000 green card holders and so-called Dreamers.

Only a potential veto from Mayor Bill de Blasio stood in the way of the measure becoming law, but the Democrat has said he would not veto it. It’s unclear whether the bill would face legal challenges.

The council’s vote was a historic moment for an effort that had long languished.

Council member Francisco Moya, whose family hails from Ecuador, choked up as he spoke in support of the bill.

“This is for my beautiful mother who will be able to vote for her son,” said Moya, while joining the session by video with his immigrant mother at his side.

More than a dozen communities across the United States already allow noncitizens to cast ballots in local elections, including 11 towns in Maryland and two in Vermont. But New York City is the largest place by far to give voting rights to noncitizens.

Noncitizens still wouldn’t be able to vote for president or members of Congress in federal races, or in the state elections that pick the governor, judges and legislators.

The city’s move could enflame the national debate over voting rights, particularly among some who wrongly assert that rampant fraud by noncitizens has taken place in federal elections.

Last year, Alabama, Colorado and Florida adopted rules that would preempt any attempts to pass laws like the one in New York City. Arizona and North Dakota already had prohibitions on the books.

“The bill we’re doing today will have national repercussions,” said the council’s majority leader, Laurie Cumbo, a Democrat who opposed the bill. She expressed concern that the measure could diminish the influence of African American voters.

Legally documented, voting-age noncitizens comprise nearly one in nine of the city’s 7 million voting-age inhabitants. The measure would allow noncitizens who have been lawful permanent residents of the city for at least 30 days, as well as those authorized to work in the U.S., including so-called Dreamers, to help select the city’s mayor, city council members, borough presidents, comptroller and public advocate.

“It is no secret; we are making history today. Fifty years down the line when our children look back at this moment, they will see a diverse coalition of advocates who came together to write a new chapter in New York City’s history by giving immigrant New Yorkers the power of the ballot,” council member Ydanis Rodriguez, a main sponsor of the bill, said in a statement after Thursday’s vote.

The law would direct the Board of Elections to draw up an implementation plan by July, including voter registration rules and provisions that would create separate ballots for municipal races to prevent noncitizens from casting ballots in federal and state contests. Noncitizens wouldn’t be allowed to vote until elections in 2023.

Even if de Blasio were to decide to veto the bill, there was enough support to override it. The measure will become law by default if the mayor decides not to act on it. The incoming mayor, Eric Adams, has said he supports the bill.

Council member Joseph Borelli, the Republican leader, said a legal challenge is likely. Opponents say the council lacks the authority on its own to grant voting rights to noncitizens and should have first sought action by state lawmakers. 

Biden Takes Infrastructure Tour to Missouri as White House Retools Message

U.S. President Joe Biden visited a bus depot Wednesday to spotlight the $1 trillion infrastructure bill’s investments in public transit as the administration sought to boost the popularity of his agenda with a new communication strategy.

Biden toured the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, which will be among the beneficiaries of the spending bill’s $89 billion for public transit over five years, including $5.6 billion to buy low- and no-emission transit vehicles like electric buses.

“It’s gonna be infrastructure decade, now man. No more talking. Action,” Biden said. Kansas City, which has two electric buses, hopes to build a fully electric fleet.

The Kansas City trip came as the White House launched a website, Build.gov, to describe the infrastructure law and ask supporters to upload videos explaining how the law impacts their lives.

The White House also unveiled a new branding phrase, “Building a Better America,” to promote it. The White House is testing whether investment in infrastructure can boost Biden’s sagging poll ratings.

The administration wants Americans to know about the president’s efforts “to make their lives easier, to deliver for them,” spokesperson Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Biden has faced challenges in all directions. Biden told the crowd he ran for president in part to unite the country, but that is “turning out to be one of the most difficult things.”

Biden’s legislative efforts have been stymied by Republican opposition along with infighting between the progressive and moderate wings of his own party.

Despite a bipartisan win in Congress on infrastructure, Biden’s opinion poll numbers have sunk as Americans fret about the COVID-19 pandemic and inflation.

The White House wants to highlight Biden’s accomplishments ahead of midterm elections next year, when Democrats are seeking to fend off Republican efforts to win control of Congress.

The White House is also looking to win passage for the second part of Biden’s economic agenda, an even larger spending package.

The Democrat-led House has passed the $1.9 trillion package, which includes funding for universal pre-kindergarten, child care, health care insurance subsidies and climate-change initiatives. But the legislation’s path in the Senate, where Democrats have the smallest of margins, remains uncertain and revisions are expected.

“We’re going to help rebuild the economy, but this time from the bottom and the middle out. This bill is a blue-collar blueprint for working Americans,” Biden said. 

US Senate Rejects Biden’s Vaccine Mandate for Businesses

The Senate narrowly approved a resolution Wednesday to nullify the Biden administration’s requirement that businesses with 100 or more workers have their employees be vaccinated against the coronavirus or submit to weekly testing.

The vote was 52-48. The measure now goes to the Democratic-led House, which is unlikely to take up the measure, which means the mandate would stand, though courts have put it on hold for now. Still, the vote gave senators a chance to voice opposition to a policy that they say has sparked fears back home from businesses and from unvaccinated constituents who worry about losing their jobs should the rule go into effect.

“Every so often Washington, D.C., does something that lights up the phone lines. This is one of these moments,” said Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican. At home, he said, “this issue is what I hear about. This issue is a top-of-mind issue.”

Lawmakers can invalidate certain federal agency regulations if a joint resolution is approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, or if Congress overrides a presidential veto. That’s unlikely to happen in this case.

Under the rule, private-sector companies with 100 or more workers must require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested for the virus weekly and wear masks on the job. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said it would work with companies on compliance but would fine them up to more than $13,000 for each violation, though implementation and enforcement is suspended as the litigation unfolds.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Americans who have refused to get vaccinated are the biggest impediment to ending the pandemic. He implied that some of the resistance to mandated vaccines is based on politics.

Schumer said social media has played a role in spreading falsehoods about the vaccine, and “so has the far right.” He urged senators to vote against the resolution, sponsored by Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind.

Republicans said they are supportive of the vaccine, but that the mandate amounts to government overreach.

“His mandates are under fire in the courts. Main Street job creators are complaining against it, and tonight, the U.S. Senate must send a clear message: back off this bad idea,” Braun said.

In the end, two Democratic lawmakers voted with 50 Republicans to void the mandate, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. Manchin had said in a tweet that he does not support any federal vaccine mandate for private businesses. Tester’s office said his opposition is based on conversations with Montana businesses who “expressed deep concerns about the negative effect on their bottom lines and our state’s economy during this fragile recovery period.”

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., sided with the Biden administration, noting that the pandemic is still raging and that deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated.

“How on earth does it make sense right now to undercut one of the strongest tools that we have to get people vaccinated and stop this virus?” Murray said. “In what world is that a good idea?” 

January 6 Panel to Move Forward With Contempt Against Meadows

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection has “no choice” but to move forward with contempt charges against former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows now that he is no longer complying with a subpoena, the panel’s chairman said Wednesday.

In a letter to Meadows’ attorney, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., said that Meadows has already provided documents to the committee, including personal emails and texts about former President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. Yet Meadows did not show up Wednesday for a scheduled deposition after his lawyer, George Terwilliger, told the panel that he was ending his cooperation.

Thompson noted in the letter that Meadows has also published a book, released this week, that discusses the Jan. 6 attack.

“That he would sell his telling of the facts of that day while denying a congressional committee the opportunity to ask him about the attack on our Capitol marks an historic and aggressive defiance of Congress,” Thompson said in a letter to Terwilliger.

The House has already voted to hold longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon in contempt after he defied a subpoena, and the Justice Department indicted Bannon on two counts.

The documents that Meadows has already provided to the panel, Thompson wrote, include communications from around the time of the presidential election and before the insurrection and involve White House efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s election victory. One email outlines what Thompson characterized as a “direct and collateral attack” that would have involved appointing an alternate slate of electors.

According to the letter, Meadows provided the committee in November with personal emails and backed up data from his personal cellphone, including text messages. Those thousands of documents included an email dated Nov. 7 — the day Biden was declared the winner — that Thompson described as “discussing the appointment of alternate slates of electors as part of a ‘direct and collateral attack’ after the election.” He did not say who sent the email or give further details.

The documents also included an email regarding a 38-page PowerPoint briefing titled “Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN,” Thompson wrote, that was intended to be shared on Capitol Hill. Thompson did not give any other details about the email but said it was dated Jan. 5, the day before hundreds of Trump’s supporters violently breached the Capitol and interrupted the certification of Biden’s victory.

A separate Nov. 6 text exchange between Meadows and an unidentified member of Congress, Thompson wrote, was “apparently about appointing alternate electors in certain states as part of a plan that the member acknowledged would be ‘highly controversial,’ and to which Mr. Meadows apparently said, ‘I love it.'”

Also included in the documents, according to Thompson: A Jan. 5 email about having the National Guard on standby the next day, an “early 2021 text message exchange” between Meadows and an organizer of the rally held the morning of Jan. 6, when Trump told his supporters to “fight like hell,” and “text messages about the need for the former president to issue a public statement that could have stopped the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.”

Terwilliger did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Meadows’ decision to stop complying with the committee came after he had initially agreed to the deposition and after Terwilliger said the committee was open to allowing him to decline some questions based on the executive privilege claims that Trump has made in an ongoing court case.

Terwilliger wrote the committee this week, however, that a deposition had become “untenable” because the Jan. 6 panel “has no intention of respecting boundaries” around questions that Trump claims are off-limits. Terwilliger also said he learned over the weekend that the committee had issued a subpoena to a third-party communications provider that he said would include “intensely personal” information about Meadows.

“As a result of careful and deliberate consideration of these factors, we now must decline the opportunity to appear voluntarily for a deposition,” Terwilliger wrote in the letter.

In his response, Thompson confirmed the subpoenas to a third party but said they should not affect Meadows’ testimony.