CAPITOL ROUNDUP: Gov. Shapiro challenges decision to revoke $185M owed 116 PA school districts
These funds include $183.6 million owed to 116 Pennsylvania school districts, charter schools, intermediate units, and career and technical centers and $1.8 million owed to the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
This funding supports mental health resources for students, provides access to reliable high-speed internet, and enables HVAC installation to improve student health and safety.
Gov. Shapiro has been working aggressively to protect Pennsylvania taxpayers and ensure the federal government honors its obligations. In February, the Governor filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration's unconstitutional freeze of federal funding, and just last week Governor Shapiro joined a multistate lawsuit to protect public health in Pennsylvania after the Trump Administration abruptly and arbitrarily canceled more than half a billion dollars in public health grants.
As a result of the Governor taking legal action both times, $2.7 billion in federal funding owed to Pennsylvanians has been restored.
"Congress and the federal government made a commitment to our students, and school districts across Pennsylvania started construction to make schools safer, delivered supplies to students, and invested to create more opportunity for our kids based on that commitment," said Gov. Shapiro. "Now the Trump Administration is trying to renege on its commitments to our kids and leave Pennsylvania taxpayers holding the bag. Every Pennsylvania student deserves the freedom to chart their own course and the opportunity to succeed."
In early 2025, the United States Department of Education (USDE) granted Pennsylvania an extension of time to access hundreds of millions of dollars in funds previously awarded to students in grades K-12 attending both public and private schools.
Legislation would increase penalties for illegals reentering the U.S.
U.S. Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Dallas, this week co-sponsored H.R. 749 — the Stop Illegal Reentry Act (Kate's Law) — a bill that would increase criminal penalties for specific individuals who illegally reenter the U.S. after exclusion or removal.
The Stop Illegal Reentry Act, also known as Kate's Law, is named in memory of Kate Steinle — a 32-year-old woman tragically killed by an illegal immigrant with multiple felony convictions who had been deported five times.
Under this legislation, individuals who have been denied entry or removed from the U.S. three or more times and then attempt to reenter illegally would face fines, up to ten years in prison, or both.
The bill also imposes stricter penalties on those with serious criminal history — specifically individuals convicted of aggravated felonies or removed after at least two prior convictions.
If they attempt to reenter, they would face a mandatory minimum sentence of five years and up to twenty years in prison, along with possible fines.
Rep. Meuser noted that under President Trump's leadership, illegal border crossings have drastically been reduced compared to the number of illegal crossings under the Biden Administration. For context, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported just 7,181 encounters at the Southern border in March of this year — a 95% decrease from the 137,473 encounters recorded in March 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration.
"H.R. 749, the Stop Illegal Reentry Act, is a targeted effort to impose serious consequences on individuals who repeatedly and unlawfully reenter the United States after removal — particularly those with felony convictions," Rep. Meuser said. "This legislation sends a clear message: if you've been removed from the country due to criminal activity and attempt to return illegally, there will be real consequences. By enforcing our immigration laws and strengthening penalties, we can help prevent future tragedies and restore accountability at the border. No family should have to endure the kind of loss that Kate Steinle's family did."
H.R. 749 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
U.S. Sen. McCormick introduces term limits resolution
U.S. Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pittsburgh, introduced a joint resolution this week proposing an amendment to the Constitution to implement term limits in Congress.
This resolution would limit Senators to two six-year terms and House Members to six two-year terms, limiting either chamber to service of 12 years.
"Our Founding Fathers never imagined that Congress would become an institution filled with career politicians who stay on well past retirement age, and Congress shouldn't be a place where people can get comfortable in their jobs," Sen. McCormick said. "We are extremely grateful for those who have served, for those who are serving, and for those who are willing to serve. At the same time, we need constant change and new blood for our democracy to work, and it is my hope that this resolution can help Washington begin to work again for the American people."
Notably, McCormick's resolution would not apply to any person who was in office prior to the 118th Congress.
Sen. McCormick said elected office has become an increasingly popular career choice rather than a temporary service.
More than one-third of Senators in the 118th Congress were 70 or older. The 119th Congress is the third oldest in history. The average Senator is nearly 64 years old, which is 11 years older than the average Senator in 1981.
Similarly, the House Members are nearly nine years older on average than they were in 1981.
As of this year, Members of the House and Senate have an average of 8.6 and 11.2 years of prior service in their respective chambers. This represents a steady increase from the early 20th century when that number fell below six years for both the House and Senate.
Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Collins looks to navigate Trump, funding landmines as 2026 looms
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is feeling the squeeze as she navigates a series of political landmines that put her at odds with President Trump and many of her own colleagues. Collins this summer voted 'no' on two of Trump's biggest priorities: the GOP's mammoth tax and spending bill and a measure to claw back money Congress had already appropriated. She also opposed several of the president's high-profile Cabinet nominees. Her vote on the rescissions measure only complicated her next difficult task: shepherding government funding legislation to Trump's desk as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee — her longtime dream job that she finally secured earlier this year. And hovering in the background is next year's midterms, when she is expected to seek a sixth term in a seat Democrats are eyeing as a key pickup opportunity. 'Give me one senator who would trade her position,' said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a top ally of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and an Appropriations panel member. He answered his own question: 'None.' Collins has long been a one-of-one member in the conference, as the foremost centrist from a blue state that GOP leadership has had to juggle as part of a membership that has trended more MAGA throughout the years. But while that balance has always been tough, it has perhaps never been more difficult than it is right now. Collins is in the midst of a high-stakes effort to fund the government by the end of September, one that was complicated by the GOP's bill to rescind public media and foreign aid funding. Even though Collins voted against the bill, as the chief GOP negotiator she still has to deal with the fallout as Democrats warn the measure poisoned the well and left them with little incentive to work with Republicans. The Maine Republican appears to have the train on the bipartisan tracks — for now. The Senate is hopeful to pass a three-bill appropriations package — known as a 'minibus' — to fund the Departments of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs, Commerce and Justice by the end of the work period, but lawmakers readily acknowledge that this is a high-wire act. 'She's got a tough job,' said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito ( an appropriator. 'I think it's really tough. The whole Congress is fractured on spending.' 'Nobody wants that job right now. … It's not Robert Byrd's Appropriations Committee,' Capito continued, referring to the powerful former West Virginia Democrat who served three stints atop the panel. Amid all of it, Collins must also eye her looming reelection bid next year in the only remaining GOP seat in a blue state, and one Democrats are anxious to flip. Multiple Senate Republicans indicated to The Hill in recent weeks that they fully expect her to move forward with a campaign. They're also praying that she does as they readily admit the seat is gone if she decides to opt against another term. 'She's the only person that can win,' Thune recently told The Hill while laying out their sales pitch for her to move ahead with a campaign. 'She has a really hard job because she's in a conference composed largely of people who represent states that are very different from hers,' Thune said. 'But I do think there's a compelling argument to chair the Appropriations Committee, get it working again and to me that would be a pretty powerful rationale for running.' Polls show a muddled picture for the five-term moderate. A recent survey taken by Morning Consult shows her favorability at only 38 percent, with 54 percent disapproving of her performance — a 16-point difference. However, Maine-based Pan Atlantic Research unveiled a poll last month showing that her favorability remains above water. Despite the tumult and uncertainty, Collins maintained that she doesn't feel the walls closing in on her. 'I've been here a number of years. I've been through many high-pressure events,' Collins told The Hill. 'That's the nature of the job if you're in a leadership position or if you're representing your constituents.' Collins is in a strong fundraising spot, having raked in $2.4 million between April and June. She also has $5.2 million on hand. Perhaps more notable at this point is that Democrats continue to struggle to find a candidate who is willing to take her on. The party is largely pinning their hopes on Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D), 77, taking the plunge, but she has shown few signs of being gung-ho about challenging Collins. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), a former Collins staffer, also declined to take her on and is expected to seek reelection to the House next year instead. Democrats are also still licking their wounds from 2020 when Collins trailed Sara Gideon for much of the cycle after being outspent heavily, only to end up winning by 9 percentage points. Notably Trump, who has made clear his dissatisfaction with those who've opposed his agenda, hasn't trained his fire on the Maine senator. Collins, meanwhile, is making clear she doesn't need any help from the White House. 'I've never had his endorsement and I've never sought it,' she recently told Semafor. 'And I run my own race.' In the meantime, Democrats are hoping to tether Collins to the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill' and the bill to claw back funding, even though she opposed both measures. They specifically point to her vote to open debate on the bill days before she voted against final passage due to the law's impact on Medicaid beneficiaries and rural hospitals in the Pine Tree State. 'Susan Collins is facing record low approval ratings in Maine because when push comes to shove, she will always have the backs of Donald Trump and Washington Republicans, not Mainers,' said Tommy Garcia, a Maine Democratic Party spokesperson. 'In the past month alone, Collins refused to use the power she likes to campaign on to stop devastating cuts to rural broadcast stations and cast a pivotal vote to green light Medicaid cuts.' Even amid the rough-and-tumble stretch, Republicans are maintaining their confidence in her to make it through unscathed. 'She keeps it all together,' said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), likening her to Wonder Woman. 'If you're going to take her on, you better come really well prepared.' 'Even at that,' he continued, 'you're probably not prepared enough.'
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republicans stop short of endorsing Trump's call to arrest Obama officials
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's document releases about the Obama administration's review of the 2016 election are leading President Trump to call for prosecution of former officials, including his predecessor. But many Republicans in Congress aren't ready to go quite that far. While Trump's GOP supporters in Congress have united in expressing outrage, they have varying ideas of what accountability looks like. And Democrats say the Trump administration is completely misrepresenting the facts while abusing intelligence and the justice system. They also see it as a bid to distract from growing pressure on the White House to release more information about deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The files reveal little new information about Russia's much-studied efforts to influence the 2016 election, but Republicans have nonetheless claimed the intelligence reviews were designed to cast doubt on Trump's victory. The documents do not undercut a central conclusion: that Russia lunched a massive campaign with the hopes of influencing the contest. House GOP leaders are vowing Congress will investigate, but are stopping short of calling for prosecutions, as Trump has, or proposing any tangible consequences for those named in the newly released documents. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) called Gabbard's disclosures 'pretty earth-shattering.' But Scalise declined to call for arrests or prosecutions. 'There needs to be accountability,' Scalise said. 'But now our committees are going to go to work. There's a lot of work to do to find out more …. You follow the evidence wherever it leads, and then if somebody broke laws, you take action. We're at the beginning stages of this. So let's find out where it leads.' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Fox Business Network last week that 'it would appear that laws have been broken by any number of people,' also alluding to congressional action. 'We will use every tool within our arsenal to bring about accountability here. And if we have to create and pioneer new tools, we'll do that as well,' Johnson said. The reaction showcases yet another fracture between congressional Republicans who are normally in lockstep behind Trump — though a much smaller one than the split over files relating to Epstein, which many Republicans have continued to seek despite Trump's calling interest in the matter a 'hoax.' If the administration did pursue charges against Obama, it would likely be hamstrung as a result of Trump's own legal battles. The Supreme Court in 2024 sided with Trump in determining that former presidents retain immunity from criminal prosecution even after they leave office for actions within the scope of their executive power. Further dissection of the limits of that immunity went unexplored when the underlying case was dismissed after Trump's reelection. But Democrats argue the biggest roadblock would be that the GOP claims don't align with the facts — and some are eager for the courts to tell Republicans just that. 'Tulsi Gabbard has leveled some of the most serious charges ever leveled against an American at a former president. Bring charges. Bring charges,' said Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. 'And the reason I want her to bring charges is that there is not a court in the United States that will do anything other than to laugh hysterically over the bulls— that Tulsi Gabbard is peddling right now.' 'They're not dumping documents. They're making up lies,' Himes added. Gabbard earlier this month released a report she said unearths a 'treasonous conspiracy' against Trump when it comes to the 'Russia hoax.' In fact, what she released shows intelligence leaders discussing how the Russians were never able to alter vote tabulations — something that was never in dispute and aligns with what Obama officials said publicly at the time. What intelligence did find, and which several reviews have since backed, was that Russia embarked on a massive social media campaign in the hopes of sowing division in the U.S. Last week, Gabbard released another report, this time a classified review led by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. That report cast doubt on whether Russian President Vladimir Putin aimed to aid Trump as opposed to sowing discord within the U.S. (In the process, she infuriated Democrats, who argued she exposed sources and methods for gathering intelligence.) However, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, a panel led at the time by now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio, blacked the conclusion Russia favored Trump. 'Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process,' that report concluded. Nonetheless, Trump this week said the new files 'have [Obama] stone-cold,' saying he needs to be investigated. 'They tried to rig the election, and they got caught. And there should be very severe consequences for that,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week. On his website Truth Social, Trump posted what appeared to be an AI-generated meme of Obama administration officials — including the former president himself — posing for mug shots in orange jumpsuits. And he shared an AI-generated video of Obama being handcuffed and arrested. Obama's team issued a rare public statement, calling the claims an effort at distraction. 'Our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' an Obama spokesperson said. 'But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.' Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) signaled that she would like to see arrests in light of the releases from Gabbard. 'If they don't arrest people, this systemic corruption will just continue,' Luna told The Blaze. In the upper chamber, meanwhile, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) last week called for a special counsel to be appointed, saying there must be 'an immediate investigation of what we believe to be an unprecedented and clear abuse of power by a U.S. presidential administration.' Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), who is normally a staunch supporter of Trump, said that calls for indictments over Gabbard's releases are 'way too premature.' 'Let the facts determine what happens,' Norman said.
Chicago Tribune
44 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How one tax change in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' that even Gov. JB Pritzker supports will work
Gov. JB Pritzker and his fellow Democrats have been unrelenting in their criticisms of the tax and spending plan President Donald Trump signed July 4. But along with much-lambasted cuts to Medicaid, food assistance and education, the budget reconciliation plan Republicans pushed through Congress this summer includes a tax change that Democrats as well as some Republicans in high-tax blue states have backed for years. The measure temporarily raises the limit on how much of their state and local tax bills taxpayers can deduct when filing their federal income tax returns. Boosting the cap on the so-called SALT deduction to $40,000, from the previous $10,000, and extending its expiration date for five years will largely benefit those at the upper end of the income scale. But it's also seen as especially beneficial in states such as Illinois that have high property taxes. 'I think raising it is a good thing for the state of Illinois, and I think more needs to be done to kind of alleviate the pain that the Trump administration is visiting on states across the country,' Pritzker said last week at an unrelated event in Chicago. 'This is one way in which pain can be alleviated. So it's a positive thing overall. Large states, highly populous states like ours, tend to benefit from the SALT deduction, so whatever is good for the state of Illinois, I'm for.' Supporting the higher limit puts Democrats, who've decried the Republican plan as a boon for the rich, in an awkward position since it largely affects high earners. Yet it can also be good politics for those representing districts that span some of Chicago's wealthier neighborhoods and suburban communities — areas that have become increasingly Democratic in recent decades. The overall impact of the change, particularly for middle- and upper-middle-income homeowners in the city and suburbs, remains to be seen, however. Trump's new tax package leaves in place a higher standard deduction that was enacted alongside the original $10,000 SALT cap as part of his 2017 tax cuts. The higher standard deduction — $31,500 for married couples on 2025 taxes that will be filed next spring — makes it less likely households with property tax bills in the low five figures would choose to itemize on their federal returns and claim the SALT deduction. Because of that and other intricacies of the tax code, the effect of the change on individual tax bills in Illinois is likely to be very narrow, said Ralph Martire, executive director of the Chicago-based Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a nonpartisan think tank. According to his group's analysis of the 2017 change, 'only 11 of the 1,229 ZIP codes in Illinois saw a majority of their taxpayers pay higher federal income taxes under the (SALT deduction) cap of $10,000,' Martire said. And as might be expected, those ZIP codes are concentrated in affluent suburbs such as Hinsdale and Wayne in DuPage County, Lake Forest, Barrington, Highland Park and Deerfield in Lake County, and Glencoe, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Wilmette and Western Springs in Cook County. 'There are communities that disproportionately impacts … and they are communities of wealth, for the most part,' Martire said. Still, Martire said, the previous cap of $10,000 likely put the squeeze on some upper-middle income families — think those earning around $250,000 per year, with a five-figure annual property tax bill and hopes of sending their kids to college without the help of need-based financial aid. 'You're upper-income … at that level, but you're not living entirely high on the hog,' Martire said. 'The truth of the matter is, from a policy standpoint, if you're going to have a cap, the cap should be relatively high, and maybe even higher than $40,000, so that those paying a higher overall tax bill are those at the very top of the scale,' he added. Taxpayers have been able to deduct what they pay to state and local governments since the permanent federal income tax was adopted in 1913. While policymakers have been chipping away at the deduction for decades, the $10,000 cap instituted in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was the most stringent restriction to date, though it didn't meet the Trump administration's and congressional Republicans' original goal of eliminating the deduction entirely. Before the 2017 change, taxpayers, with a few exceptions, could deduct from their federal taxes the full amount they paid in local property taxes as well as either state income or sales taxes. Pritzker last week said the cap 'never should have been put in place in the first place.' Republicans who pushed for eliminating or at least limiting the deduction argued that the policy was a federal tax giveaway to Democratic-led states that had made political decisions to impose higher levies on their residents. Many Democrats in states such as New York, California and Illinois opposed the cap, arguing that their residents already send a greater share of tax dollars to Washington than their states receive back and that limiting the deduction would result in some people being taxed twice on the same income. The new cap became a contentious issue in some congressional races in the 2018 midterm election, particularly in suburban districts. U.S. Rep. Sean Casten of Downers Grove, for instance, campaigned heavily on the issue in his successful bid to unseat GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, a six-term incumbent from Wheaton who helped write the legislation creating the $10,000 cap. When Democrats took control of the House in 2019, they passed legislation that would have eliminated the cap. The measure was not taken up in the Republican-led Senate, though support for the limit didn't break cleanly along party lines. After Democrats took control of the Senate in 2021 with President Joe Biden in the White House, efforts to address the cap again faltered, despite efforts by Pritzker and other Democratic governors who wrote Biden a letter that spring calling for it to be eliminated. 'Like so many of President Trump's efforts, capping SALT deductions was based on politics, not logic or good government,' the letter said. 'This assault disproportionately targeted Democratic-run states, increasing taxes on hardworking families,' the governors said. Eventually, however, the issue was left by the wayside as the Biden administration worked to cobble together support for his scaled-down domestic policy agenda, in large part because eliminating the cap would have cost the federal government roughly $100 billion in lost revenue annually. Once Republicans took back control of Congress and the White House in the 2024 election, the GOP was forced to grapple with the issue as Trump and his supporters worked to push through his sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act. With few votes to spare thanks to a razor-thin majority and unified Democratic opposition to the overall package, several House Republicans from Democratic-led states, though none of Illinois' three GOP members, threatened to withhold their support if a higher limit for the state and local tax deduction wasn't included. Without any action from Congress, the cap would have expired completely at the end of the year. In the end, Trump signed a measure that raised the cap to $40,000 for the current year, with a 1% annual increase through 2029. In 2030, the cap will drop back to $10,000, unless Congress takes further action. The higher cap phases out for higher-income individuals, beginning with those earning more than $500,000 but doesn't drop below the $10,000 level for any taxpayer who claims the deduction. Despite the effort to scale back the cap for the highest earners, only about 7% of tax filers will see a benefit from the change, according to estimates from the Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, research associate Nikhita Airi said. Of the overall tax savings, nearly 85% will go to the top 20% of earners, with more than half going to those in the top 10%. 'It's a deduction with a pretty clear constituency, and that kind of explains why it's been so politically durable and what ended up happening within the reconciliation bill,' Airi said. Even though some Illinois Democrats have been pushing for the cap on the deduction to be raised, they weren't in a celebratory mood when Republicans did so as part of their massive $3.4 trillion package. 'If I served you a big bowl of poison and there's a Skittle in it, you shouldn't eat the Skittle,' Casten, the Downers Grove Democrat, said at a recent forum hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
