Latest news with #legislation
Fox News
an hour ago
- Health
- Fox News
Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' faces Republican family feud as Senate reveals its final text
Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 28, 2025 Senate Republicans unveiled their long-awaited version of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill," but its survival is not guaranteed. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., revealed the stitched-together text of the colossal bill late Firday night. The final product from the upper chamber is the culmination of a roughly month-long sprint to take the House GOP's version of the bill and mold and change it. The colossal package includes separate pieces and parts from 10 Senate committees. With the introduction of the bill, a simple procedural hurdle must be passed in order to begin the countdown to final passage. When that comes remains an open question. Senate Republicans left their daily lunch on Friday under the assumption that a vote could be teed up as early as noon on Saturday. HOUSE CONSERVATIVES GO TO WAR WITH SENATE OVER TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told Fox News Digital that he had "strongly encouraged" Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., to put the bill on the floor for a vote Saturday afternoon. "If you're unhappy with that, you're welcome to fill out a hurt feelings report, and we will review it carefully later," Kennedy said. "But in the meantime, it's time to start voting." But Senate Republicans' desire to impose their will on the package and make changes to already divisive policy tweaks in the House GOP's offering could doom the bill and derail Thune's ambitious timeline to get it on Trump's desk by the July 4 deadline. However, Thune has remained firm that lawmakers would stay on course and deliver the bill to Trump by Independence Day. When asked if he had the vote to move the package forward, Thune said "we'll find out tomorrow." TOP TRUMP HEALTH OFFICIAL SLAMS DEMOCRATS FOR 'MISLEADING' CLAIMS ABOUT MEDICAID REFORM But it wasn't just lawmakers who nearly derailed the bill. The Senate parliamentarian, the true final arbiter of the bill, ruled that numerous GOP-authored provisions did not pass muster with Senate rules. Any item in the "big, beautiful bill" must comport with the Byrd Rule, which governs the budget reconciliation process and allows for a party in power to ram legislation through the Senate while skirting the 60-vote filibuster threshold. That sent lawmakers back to the drawing board on a slew of policy tweaks, including the Senate's changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate, cost-sharing for food benefits and others. Republican leaders, the White House and disparate factions within the Senate and House GOP have been meeting to find middle ground on other pain points, like tweaking the caps on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. While the controversial Medicaid provider tax rate change remained largely the same, a $25 billion rural hospital stabilization fund was included in the bill to help attract possible holdouts that have raised concerns that the rate change would shutter rural hospitals throughout the country. On the SALT front, there appeared to be a breakthrough on Friday. A source told Fox News that the White House and House were on board with a new plan that would keep the $40,000 cap from the House's bill and have it reduced back down to $10,000 after five years. But Senate Republicans are the ones that must accept it at this stage. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., has acted as the mediator in those negotiations, and said that he was unsure if any of his colleagues "love it." "But I think, as I've said before, I want to make sure we have enough that people can vote for than to vote against," he said. Still, a laundry list of other pocket issues and concerns over just how deep spending cuts in the bill go have conservatives and moderates in the House GOP and Senate pounding their chests and vowing to vote against the bill. Republican leaders remain adamant that they will finish the mammoth package and are gambling that some lawmakers standing against the bill will buckle under the pressure from the White House and the desire to leave Washington for a short break. Once a motion to proceed is passed, which only requires a simple majority, then begins 20 hours of debate evenly divided between both sides of the aisle. 'BABY STEPS': LEADER THUNE DETAILS HIS WORK TO CORRAL REPUBLICANS BEHIND TRUMP'S LEGISLATIVE VISION Democratic lawmakers are expected to spend the entirety of their 10 allotted hours, while Republicans will likely clock in well below their limit. From there starts the "vote-a-rama" process, when lawmakers can submit a near-endless number of amendments to the bill. Democrats will likely try to extract as much pain as possible with messaging amendments that won't actually pass but will add more and more time to the process. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP Once that is complete, lawmakers will move to a final vote. If successful, the "big, beautiful bill" will again make its way back to the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., will again have to corral dissidents to support the legislation. It barely advanced last month, squeaking by on a one-vote margin. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hammered on the importance of passing Trump's bill on time. He met with Senate Republicans during their closed-door lunch and spread the message that advancing the colossal tax package would go a long way to giving businesses more certainty in the wake of the president's tariffs. "We need certainty," he said. "With so much uncertainty, and having the bill on the president's desk by July 4 will give us great tax certainty, and I believe, accelerate the economy in the third quarter of the year." Print Close URL
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
WA's Newhouse says he won't vote for GOP mega-bill if it calls for public land sales
Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), seen during a July 2019 hearing on Capitol Hill, in Washington, D.C., was reelected in the 2024 election to a sixth term in the U.S. House. Washington U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse says he won't back the sweeping tax cut and spending bill his fellow Republicans are trying to push through Congress if it includes controversial provisions to sell off federal public land. Newhouse and four other Republicans in the U.S. House stated their opposition to the potential land sales in a Thursday letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson. 'If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no,' says the letter, which was also signed by Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, Rep. Cliff Bentz, R-Oregon, and Rep. David Valadao, R-Calif. Republicans hold a narrow 220-212 majority in the House, and their 'One Big Beautiful Bill' squeaked through that chamber by just a single vote in May. Before it did, Republicans scrapped a proposal to make 500,000 acres of public land in Nevada and Utah available for sale. The sweeping budget legislation is now under consideration in the Senate, where Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced a scaled-up version of the land sale proposal earlier this month. It would've made millions of acres of U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property in Washington and other states eligible for sale. Earlier this week, the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian ruled the language of Lee's original proposition was out of order. However, Lee has said he wants to press ahead with a narrower version of the plan that would still put thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management property up for sale in 11 Western states, including Washington. Newhouse and the four other Republicans said in their letter to Johnson that they 'generally accept changes to the bill that may be made by the Senate.' But they added: 'We cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Senator Lee seeks.' They said efforts by Lee to add a land sale proposal into the bill 'would be a grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor.' A spokesman for Newhouse's office said Friday the congressman did not have any comment on the issue beyond what was said in the letter. 6.26.25 Public Lands Letter A copy of the letter that U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse and four other House Republicans sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson on June 26, 2025.
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Business
- Forbes
European Parliament Wants To Reduce Cost Of Sustainability Reporting Requirements
People walk by a European Union flag (Photo by) The European Parliament is debating legislation to reduce sustainability reporting requirements in the European Union. The original proposal of the European Commission included a drastic reduction of the scope of a pair of sustainability reporting directives. The member leading the drafting of the Parliament's has released his draft proposal, calling for even more cuts, alarming sustainability activists and emboldening business interests. That proposal was debated in the June 24 meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI. As part of the European Green Deal, a trilogy of directives were passed by the EU to force businesses to address climate change and report greenhouse gas missions. However, the cost of these proposals on businesses and the broader impact on the EU economy became a theme during the 2024 elections. The shift to the right in EU politics embolden opponents. As a result, the Commission proposed a package of new directives to 'reduce the burden' on businesses. The Omnibus Simplification Package was officially adopted by the Commission in February. The proposal is being debated in the Council and the Parliament. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. MEP Jörgen Warborn, of the European People's Party, has been designated as the rapporteur to lead the drafting of the final legislation. Warborn's draft report was made public on June 6. The draft includes 82 proposed amendments. During the June 24 JURI meeting, the Committee addressed the proposed amendments. Warburn was given the opportunity to share his initial proposal and the shadow rapporteurs gave initial comments. Jörgen Warborn Warburn stated the EPP's goal in the proposal. 'We would like to go further in cutting costs, because we need to strengthen European competitiveness in order to create long-term prosperity for European citizens.' To justify the need for cuts, he stated "sustainability rests on three pillars: the environmental pillar, the social pillar, and the economic pillar… if one breaks, the stretcher collapses." He then outlined his 10 key priorities in the proposal: MEP Lara Wolters, Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats Lara Wolters, of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), stated her group felt the 'Commission proposal was extremely rushed and deeply flawed.' She says that the proposal is not focused on removing the administrative burden, rather on removing accountability. She did not get into the specifics of the S&D proposal, but gave a vigorous counterargument to reductions. Countering the EPP's push to lower costs on businesses, she stated that she 'is not inspired by this… It is our job to weigh public versus private interests. But if costs are all the EPP cares about at the moment, then at least let us be honest that the costs are merely being displaced. Costs reduced for companies here are costs that the world will need to shoulder anyway. Climate denial comes at a cost. So does environmental degradation, exploitation, and inequality. So does feeding populism.' MEP Pascal Canfin, The Renew Group Pascal Canfin, of the Renew Europe Group, stated that he agrees with the EPP on the auditing of the CSRD report. He believes there is room to negotiation on that topic and reduce cost beyond the Commission proposal. He stated that he agrees in cost reduction, but that the EPP proposal does not deliver that. Focusing on capital market union, he said investors need data. The reduction in of the CSRD may save costs on paper, but will increase costs in the long term as investors spend more to gather the data. He will be offering amendments to address those concerns. Renew will also present amendments to address the single market approach and what he views as conflict with the restriction on civil liability causing market fragmentation. He also took issue with the application of the 3000 employee threshold to non-EU companies, claiming that would exempt nearly all non-EU companies from the scope. Interestingly, he stated the calculation of the employee count for non-EU companies is not based on total employees in the EU, rather total employees in a member state. MEP Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, Group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance (EFA) Kira Peter-Hansen, of the Group of the Greens/ European Free Alliance (EFA), stated that they agree with simplification and "reporting must be both meaningful and manageable.' However, she agrees with the S&D that the Omnibus and the EPP proposals go beyond simplification into deregulation. She pointed out that the raised thresholds not only eliminate 80% of the companies, but also some member states as they do not have any companies large enough to comply. She encouraged the use of the EFRAG data to simplify the data points in the European Sustainability Reporting Standards to simplify reporting requirements without 'weakening impact.' She accused the EPP of 'choosing populistic, symbolic changes over actual needed changes that would benefit from a revision." Further, she stated that 'removing climate transition plans completely is not just wrong, it is irresponsible.' She encouraged the adoption of a risk-based approach over the Commission proposal of mapping the value chain, claiming it would increase costs for companies. Finally, she objected to the removal of civil liability in the CSDDD. MEP Arash Saeidi, The Left Group Arash Saeidi, of The Left, opened by stated that 'there are men, women, and children whose rights are being breached and they're just being seen as cogs in the wheel of a production - modern slavery, textiles workers, forced labor to produce our electronics.. workers killed on sites. The CSDDD is designed to put an end to impunity and finally holding companies legally accountable from environmental damage and infringement of human rights.' He stated that The Left will present a proposal to reject all the proposed changes and stay with the existing text in the CSRD and CSDDD. Political parties and MEP had until June 27 to submit amendments. On July 15, the shadow rapporteurs will meet to discus the amendments and begin negotiations. To pass, the proposal needs majority support. Committee opinions are being drafted by Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, Foreign Affairs, known as AFET, International Trade, known as INTA, and Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL. Those will be sent to JURI for consideration. I suspect Warborn's proposal is a negotiation tactic. By promoting a position that is more extreme than the original Commission proposal, the EPP has room to negotiate. However, the recent proposal by the Council was also to the right of the Commission. The final Parliament proposal may end up being the middle ground. JURI is expected to adopt the final language to reduce the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive on October 13. Following the vote of the Parliament, designated representatives from the Parliament, Council, and Commission will enter into "trilogue" negotiations. The proposals from each of the three bodies will vary. The trilogue will negotiate the differences to produce a final directive. That directive will be sent to the Council and Parliament for a final vote in December or January.
New York Times
8 hours ago
- Business
- New York Times
Why a Bill Nobody Loves Feels Inevitable
The path for the One Big Beautiful Bill, as President Trump calls his signature domestic legislation, has not been linear. The bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts and cut into the social safety net to pay for it, barely passed the House. It was heavily rewritten in the Senate. In recent days, various provisions have been rejected by a key Senate official whose job is to make sure that lawmakers color inside the lines of such budget bills, leaving senators scrambling to add back in what they can. Then there's the fact that, as my colleagues Carl Hulse and Catie Edmondson wrote today, nobody really loves the bill. But this is Trump's Washington. And trifling matters like not knowing quite what's going to be in the bill — and not particularly liking it — will probably not stop Senate Republicans from voting for it, potentially as soon as this weekend. I asked Catie, who has covered every twist and turn of this bill's winding path, to explain how it became a policy grab bag, why it makes so many Republicans uncomfortable — and why none of that probably matters when it comes to its chances of becoming law. As we speak, Republicans are scrambling to save various provisions that the Senate parliamentarian believes run afoul of the rules governing budget bills. You've covered Congress since the first Trump administration, and you have seen a lot of sausage-making in that time. Is it always, uh, like this? Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Bloomberg
8 hours ago
- Business
- Bloomberg
A Big Win: Rep. Lawler on Tentative SALT Deal Reached
Representative Mike Lawler (R) NY shares his thoughts on tentatively reaching a deal on SALT with his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Rep. Lawler talks about how this deal could benefit additional states outside of New York, New Jersey, and California & the potential hurdle the House is facing as the self-imposed tax bill deadline looms. Representative Lawler speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
