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
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
E.P.A. Is Said to Draft a Plan to End Its Ability to Fight Climate Change
The Trump administration has drafted a plan to repeal a fundamental scientific finding that gives the United States government its authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions and fight climate change, according to two people familiar with the plan. The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule rescinds a 2009 declaration known as the 'endangerment finding,' which scientifically established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives. That finding is the foundation of the federal government's only tool to limit the climate pollution from vehicles, power plants and other industries that is dangerously heating the planet. The E.P.A. proposal, which is expected to be made public within days, also calls for rescinding limits on tailpipe emissions that were designed to encourage automakers to build and sell more electric vehicles. Those regulations, which were based on the endangerment finding, were a fundamental part of the Biden administration's efforts to move the country away from gasoline-powered vehicles. The transportation sector is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. The E.P.A. intends to argue that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice, according to the two people familiar with the administration's plan. They asked to remain anonymous because they weren't authorized to discuss the draft proposal. The draft proposal could still undergo changes. But if it is approved by the White House and formally released, the public would have an opportunity to weigh in before it is made final, likely later this year. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
EPA drafts rule to strike down landmark climate finding
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to rescind a landmark 2009 legal opinion that greenhouse gas emissions put human health at risk, which underpins many of the government's actions to combat climate change, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision was not yet public. The 'endangerment finding,' which determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare, provides the legal justification for regulating them under the Clean Air Act. In March, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said the agency would reconsider the finding, among dozens of potential environmental rollbacks announced on what he called 'the most consequential day of deregulation in American history.' Zeldin has previously said he aims to strike a balance between economic concerns and protecting the environment. 'After 16 years, EPA will formally reconsider the Endangerment Finding,' Zeldin said in a statement at the time. 'The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas.' A decision to completely rescind the endangerment finding is still a draft proposal and could be subject to change, according to the two individuals. The draft would also eliminate all resulting limits on motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, according to one of them, with the second person describing this outcome as likely. A government website lists the title of a document under review with the Office of Management and Budget called 'Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding and Motor Vehicle Reconsideration Rule,' but it gives no details on the proposal, which still must be released for public comment before it is finalized. David Doniger, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said the proposed repeal of the endangerment finding is not justified under the law. 'They're trying to completely defang the Clean Air Act by saying, 'Well, this stuff's just not dangerous,'' Doniger said. 'That claim is just mind-bogglingly contrary to the evidence.' Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a conservative think tank, said he fully supports the administration's efforts to review the endangerment finding, saying that Congress never mandated the EPA to take action on the issue and that the agency instead relied on a single ambiguous Supreme Court case. 'It's long since past the time for an administration to review this,' Pyle said. 'Ultimately Congress should have a say when it's all said and done.' The draft rule largely avoids making scientific arguments about climate change and instead focuses on making legal arguments saying that the agency does not have the basis to act on climate change under a certain section of the Clean Air Act, the two people familiar with the matter said. Zeldin's EPA has said that the Biden administration did not properly consider all the policy implications. The finding has allowed for seven regulations on vehicle emissions with a cost of more than $1 trillion, according to the EPA. Richard Revesz, a law professor at New York University and former Biden administration official, said that repealing the endangerment finding is unlikely to hold up in court but that the move will still affect U.S. climate policy until a final judicial decision is made. 'If the endangerment finding fell, it would call into question essentially all or almost all of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases,' Revesz said. The endangerment finding was written in response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision saying that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant, essentially requiring the EPA to regulate them, according to legal experts. The endangerment finding had been updated and expanded since 2009, effectively serving as the government's understanding of the latest climate science, said Joseph Goffman, who headed the EPA's air office under President Joe Biden. 'Withdrawing the endangerment finding is in effect a repudiation of scientific reality,' Goffman said. Doniger and other people familiar with the matter said that the Trump administration official Jeffrey Clark, acting administrator in the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the primary architect of the proposed repeal of the endangerment finding. 'Since 2009, I've consistently argued that the endangerment finding required a consideration of downstream costs imposed on both mobile sources like cars and stationary sources like factories,' Clark said in the March statement released by the EPA. 'Under the enlightened leadership of President Trump and Administrator Zeldin, the time for fresh thought has finally arrived.' As a career attorney in the Justice Department during the George W. Bush administration, Clark worked on the case that eventually resulted in the 2007 Supreme Court decision that prompted the EPA to write the endangerment finding. 'He's trying to get revenge,' Doniger said.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Columbia disciplines dozens of students over campus protests amid federal pressure
Columbia University disciplined dozens of students this week after its Judicial Board investigated pro-Palestinian demonstrations at the university's largest library this year and at another campus location last year – as the school tries to get millions in federal funding restored. 'While the University does not release individual disciplinary results of any student, the sanctions from Butler Library include probation, suspensions (ranging from one year to three years), degree revocations, and expulsions,' the university said in a statement Tuesday. 'Disruptions to academic activities are in violation of University policies and Rules, and such violations will necessarily generate consequences.' More than 70 students were sanctioned, with around 80% receiving suspensions, expulsions, or degree revocations, according to a source familiar with the disciplinary action. Most of the suspensions were for at least two years, the source added. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on the sanctions. Columbia has become a focal point in the Trump administration's push for campuses to crack down on antisemitism, as elite schools like Columbia and Harvard face pressure to act or risk losing federal funding. Columbia has taken a less confrontational approach than Harvard as it seeks to regain access to millions in federal funding the administration stripped earlier this year. The effort is part of a broad push by the Trump administration for policy changes at universities – including diversity, equity and inclusion and other initiatives – that President Donald Trump sees as a winning political issue. But it also raises major questions about academic freedom and the role of the federal government on college campuses. Earlier this month, CNN reported that Columbia was on the verge of striking an agreement with the Trump administration to restore federal funding to the school following months of negotiations, according to two sources familiar with the deal. White House officials met with Columbia representatives last week, a source familiar with the meeting told CNN, as the Trump administration nears a deal that would require the university pay a settlement and implement changes to restore federal funding. The source said a deal was close, but declined to offer more details. In its statement Tuesday Columbia said it 'must focus on delivering on its academic mission for our community.' 'And to create a thriving academic community, there must be respect for each other and the institution's fundamental work, policies, and rules,' the statement continued. 'The speed with which our updated UJB system has offered an equitable resolution to the community and students involved is a testament to the hard work of this institution to improve its processes.' The New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-NY) Executive Director Afaf Nasher called the move to suspend students 'grotesquely oppressive.' 'The students sat in unity to urge ending complicity in an active genocide,' Nasher said in a statement. 'Columbia, seemingly bowing to political pressure from the Trump administration, has done more than undermine free speech and higher education. The University has sold its morality, academic integrity, and commitment to students.' CNN's Alayna Treene and Betsy Klein contributed to this report. Correction: An earlier version of this story overstated the number of students sanctioned. More than 70 students were sanctioned.
