Tag Archives: Congress.gov

The Big Beautiful Bill Has Passed The Senate

Posted on by

Breitbart reported on Tuesday that the Big Beautiful Bill has passed the Senate. Vice-President J.D. Vance cast the tie-breaking vote. The bill now goes back to the House of Representatives where the first procedural vote is expected to happen on Wednesday.

The article reports:

The bill includes an enormous assemblage of Trump’s campaign promises on border security, energy, national security, spending cuts, and taxes. The bill also includes Medicaid reforms and an increase in defense spending.

It didn’t come easy.

“Tensions have been high at times, but we’re at the end now,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), the Budget Committee Chairman, said with enthusiasm through bloodshot eyes during the final vote series.

…At 10:12 am EST, Senators were instructed to make their way to the Floor and plan to be in their seats in 15 minutes. Over an hour later, a large group of Senators was still huddled at the dais negotiating with the help of Senate staff, including Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth McDonough.

Eventually an agreement was reached, and the Senate, anxious to end the marathon session, breezed through the final votes.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY), who voted against proceeding to the bill, voted against its passage. They were joined by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), whose amendment to raise taxes on billionaires to pay for a fund for rural hospitals was soundly defeated – her amendment received a bipartisan smattering of 22 votes.

Sen. Lisa Murkowksi (R-AK) required a last minute agreement on a Medicaid carveout for her state after the Senate parliamentarian ruled the prior agreement violated the much ballyhooed Byrd rule which governs what can be included in reconciliation bills.

The article concludes:

The path ahead is arduous.

The big, beautiful bill now heads to the House, where a handful of moderates have protested the Medicaid reforms, and a large block of spending hawks, mostly consisting of House Freedom Caucus members, want more spending cuts in line with the version of the bill the House sent to the Senate.

The first procedural vote is expected Wednesday morning at 9 am.

Yet Trump’s July 4 deadline remains in reach. And Trump is likely to lobby, cajole, threaten, and twist arms – or whatever else is necessary – to secure his signature legislative achievement.

This is not a perfect bill, but it is a beginning. Now it’s time for Congress to start voting on spending cuts.

H.R.4 – Rescissions Act of 2025 has already passed the house. This bill rescinds $9.4 billion in unobligated funds that were provided to the Department of State, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), various independent and related agencies, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

The rescissions were proposed by the President under procedures included in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under current law, the President may propose rescissions to Congress using specified procedures, and the rescissions must be enacted into law to take effect.

For further information on this bill, go to Congress.gov and put “H.R.4” in the search engine.

It is possible to cut spending–we just need a Congress willing to do it.

What Is The Penalty For A U.S. Citizen?

Posted on by

An American who is arrested for Driving Under the Influence faces jail time, losing his license, and heavy fines. What should the penalty be for a person who is here illegally who is arrested for Driving Under the Influence?

On Thursday, The Conservative Review reported that 150 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted against a measure to state that aliens who drive “while intoxicated or impaired” are inadmissible and, if convicted of such an offense, deportable. How in the world would voting against the measure keep Americans safe?

The article reports:

In a bipartisan 274-150 vote, the House of Representatives passed a measure on Thursday that would declare that aliens who drive “while intoxicated or impaired” are inadmissible and, if convicted of such an offense, deportable.

The 150 lawmakers who voted against the measure were all Democrats. But 59 other Democrats joined 215 Republicans in voting to approve the measure.

“Any alien who has been convicted of an offense for driving while intoxicated or impaired, as those terms are defined under the law of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred (including a conviction for driving while under the influence of or impaired by alcohol or drugs), without regard to whether the conviction is classified as a misdemeanor or felony under Federal, State, tribal, or local law, is deportable,” the measure reads.

There is currently on the books a law making an illegal deportable if he is guilty of moral turpitude. This law simply clarifies the current law. At any rate, isn’t entering a country illegally breaking the law? Shouldn’t that be subject to deportation?

Who Has The Right To Compete In Women’s Sports?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that H.R. 734 is currently making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives.

This is how Congress.gov (you have to type in the bill number as the specific page expires) summarizes the bill:

Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act of 2023

This bill generally prohibits school athletic programs from allowing individuals whose biological sex at birth was male to participate in programs that are for women or girls.

Specifically, the bill provides that it is a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for federally funded education programs or activities to operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs or activities that allow individuals of the male sex to participate in programs or activities that are designated for women or girls. (Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs or activities, including in public elementary and secondary schools and in colleges and universities.) Under the bill, sex is based on an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

The bill does not prohibit male individuals from training or practicing with programs or activities for women or girls as long as such training or practice does not deprive any female of corresponding opportunities or benefits.

This sounds like common sense to me. However, not everyone agrees with the concepts stated in the bill.

Hot Air reports:

A new bill (H.R. 734) titled the Protection of Women and Girls Sports Act is currently making its way through the House with a vote anticipated later this week. The measure would prevent biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ sports in schools. The bill has even attracted some bipartisan support in the Senate, meaning that is should have a realistic chance of making it out of the legislature. But yesterday, the White House issued a statement saying that Joe Biden will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. This statement is the clearest sign yet that the President has fully bought into the ongoing transgender craze. But one aspect of the legislation could provide a watershed moment if a challenge to it reaches the courts.

…One interesting twist in this debate comes with the bill’s references to Title IX. For a long time now, starting with Barack Obama, Democrats have been fighting to expand the definition of the protections offered in Title IX to include transgender definitions. H.R. 734 seeks to turn the tables and invoke Title IX to apply directly to actual women as it was originally intended.

The second and more important facet of the legislation is found in its definition of the word “sex.” It clearly defines sex as being “based on an individual’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” This is precisely the sort of legal barricade that we need to drive home and put before the Supreme Court. The unscientific nonsense driving the entire transgender debate can’t be allowed to impose insanity on our legislative process and the laws of the land.

The fact that this bill is drawing at least some bipartisan support could be a signal of things to come.

What would happen if I decided to identify as a six-year old and signed up for t-ball? I might score a lot of home runs. Generally speaking, the physical structure of a man has more muscle mass than that of a woman. Men have no place competing in women’s sports. It’s not a fair competition.