WASHINGTON —

The House moved toward swift passage Wednesday of legislation that would devote more federal resources to preventing domestic terrorism in response to the racist mass shooting in Buffalo, New York.

The legislative effort is not new, as the House passed a similar measure in 2020 only to have it languish in the Senate. But lacking support in the Senate to move ahead with the gun-control legislation that they say is necessary to stop mass shootings, Democrats are instead pushing for a broader federal focus on domestic terrorism.

"We in Congress can't stop the likes of (Fox News host) Tucker Carlson from spewing hateful, dangerous replacement theory ideology across the airwaves. Congress hasn't been able to ban the sale of assault weapons. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is what Congress can do this week to try to prevent future Buffalo shootings," Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., who first introduced the measure in 2017, said on the House floor Wednesday.

The measure seeks to prevent another attack like the one that took place in Buffalo on Saturday when police say an 18-year-old white man drove three hours to carry out a racist, livestreamed shooting rampage in a crowded supermarket. Ten people were killed.

The Democratic sponsors of the bill say it will fill the gaps in intelligence-sharing among the Justice Department, Department of Homeland Security and the FBI so that they can better track and respond to the growing threat of white extremist terrorism.

Under current law, the three federal agencies already work to investigate, prevent and prosecute acts of domestic terrorism. But the bill would require each agency to open offices specifically dedicated to those tasks and create an interagency task force to combat the infiltration of white supremacy in the military.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would cost about $105 million over five years, with most of the money going toward hiring staff.

"As we took 911 seriously, we need to take this seriously. This is a domestic form of the same terrorism that killed the innocent people of New York City and now this assault in Buffalo and many other places," Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who is sponsoring an identical bill in the Senate, said Wednesday. "The only thing missing between these organizations in the past are the white robes."

Senate Democrats are pledging to bring up the bill for a vote next week. But its prospects are uncertain, with Republicans opposed to bolstering the power of the Justice Department in domestic surveillance.

Republican lawmakers assert that the Justice Department abused its power to conduct more domestic surveillance when Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo in October aimed at combating threats against school officials nationwide. They labeled the memo as targeting concerned parents.

GOP lawmakers also say the bill doesn't place enough emphasis on combatting domestic terrorism committed by groups on the far left. Under the bill, agencies would be required to produce a joint report every six months that assesses and quantifies domestic terrorism threats nationally, including threats posed by white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups.

"This bill glaringly ignores the persistent domestic terrorism threat from the radical left in this country and instead makes the assumption that it is all on the white and the right," said Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

The divergence highlights the stubborn gap between Democrats and Republicans over domestic terrorism in the U.S. and how it should be defined and prosecuted.

For decades, terrorism has been consistently tied with attacks from foreign actors, but as homegrown terrorism, often perpetrated by white men, has flourished over the past two decades, Democratic lawmakers have sought to clarify it in federal statute.

"We've seen it before in American history. The only thing missing between these organizations and the past are the white robes," Durbin said. "But the message is still the same hateful, divisive message, that sets off people to do outrageously extreme things, and violent things, to innocent people across America. It's time for us to take a stand."

A milestone environmental measure designed to tap the brakes on the spread of cryptocurrency mining operations burning fossil fuels in New York has passed the state legislature.

The closely watched bill approved early Friday by the state Senate would establish a two-year moratorium on new and renewed air permits for fossil fuel power plants used for energy-intensive “proof-of-work” cryptomining.

Proof-of-work is the blockchain-based algorithm used by bitcoin and some other cryptocurrencies.

The bill, which supporters say is the first of its kind, now goes to Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul for consideration. The governor has said she wants to make sure any legislation balances economic and environmental concerns.

Environmentalists who lobbied for the bill said natural gas-burning power plants being used for cryptomining operations threaten the state’s ability to meet its long-term climate goals.

Supporters of the cryptocurrency industry said the measure would crimp economic development in New York. The Blockchain Association, an industry group, said it would simply prompt mining operations to move to other states.

Cryptocurrency mining requires specialized computers that consume huge amounts of energy.

One study calculated that as of November 2018, bitcoin’s annual electricity consumption was comparable to Hong Kong’s in 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Some miners are looking for ways to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels to produce the necessary electricity.

A coalition of environmental groups has separately been urging the Hochul administration to deny the air permit renewal for Greenidge Generation in the Finger Lakes, which also produces power for the state's electricity grid. A decision could come at the end of the month.

This measure, if signed into law, would not affect pending applications like the one from Greenidge.

The measure also would require the state Department of Environmental Conservation to perform an environmental impact assessment on how cryptomining affect the state’s ability to meet its climate goals.

Additional reporting by The Associated Press.

Newsy is the nation’s only free 24/7 national news network. You can find Newsy using your TV’s digital antenna or stream for free. See all the ways you can watch Newsy here: https://bit.ly/Newsy1

WASHINGTON —

Democrats pushed their election-year economic package to Senate passage Sunday, a hard-fought compromise less ambitious than President Joe Biden’s original domestic vision but one that still meets deep-rooted party goals of slowing global warming, moderating pharmaceutical costs and taxing immense corporations.

The estimated $740 billion package heads next to the House, where lawmakers are poised to deliver on Biden's priorities, a stunning turnaround of what had seemed a lost and doomed effort that suddenly roared back to political life. Democrats held united, 51-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting the tie-breaking vote.

“It's been a long, tough and winding road, but at last, at last we have arrived,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., ahead of final votes.

“The Senate is making history. I am confident the Inflation Reduction Act will endure as one of the defining legislative measures of the 21st century.”

Senators engaged in a round-the-clock marathon of voting that began Saturday and stretched late into Sunday afternoon. Democrats swatted down some three dozen Republican amendments designed to torpedo the legislation. Confronting unanimous GOP opposition, Democratic unity in the 50-50 chamber held, keeping the party on track for a morale-boosting victory three months from elections when congressional control is at stake.

“I think it’s gonna pass,” Biden told reporters as he left the White House early Sunday to go to Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, ending his COVID-19 isolation. The House seemed likely to provide final congressional approval when it returns briefly from summer recess on Friday.

The bill ran into trouble midday over objections to the new 15% corporate minimum tax that private equity firms and other industries disliked, forcing last-minute changes.

Despite the momentary setback, the “Inflation Reduction Act” gives Democrats a campaign-season showcase for action on coveted goals. It includes the largest-ever federal effort on climate change — close to $400 billion — caps out-of-pocket drug costs for seniors on Medicare to $2,000 a year and extends expiring subsidies that help 13 million people afford health insurance. By raising corporate taxes, the whole package is paid for, with some $300 billion extra revenue for deficit reduction.

Barely more than one-tenth the size of Biden’s initial 10-year, $3.5 trillion rainbow of progressive aspirations in his Build Back Better initiative, the new package abandons earlier proposals for universal preschool, paid family leave and expanded child care aid. That plan collapsed after conservative Sen. Joe. Manchin, D-W.Va., opposed it, saying it was too costly and would fuel inflation.

Nonpartisan analysts have said the “Inflation Reduction Act” would have a minor effect on surging consumer prices.

Republicans said the measure would undermine an economy that policymakers are struggling to keep from plummeting into recession. They said the bill's business taxes would hurt job creation and force prices skyward, making it harder for people to cope with the nation's worst inflation since the 1980s.

“Democrats have already robbed American families once through inflation, and now their solution is to rob American families a second time," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., argued. He said spending and tax increases in the legislation would eliminate jobs while having an insignificant impact on inflation and climate change.

In an ordeal imposed on all budget bills like this one, the Senate had to endure an overnight “vote-a-rama” of rapid-fire amendments. Each tested Democrats' ability to hold together a compromise negotiated by Schumer, progressives, Manchin and the inscrutable centrist Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz.

Progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., offered amendments to further expand the legislation's health benefits, and those efforts were defeated. Most votes were forced by Republicans and many were designed to make Democrats look soft on U.S.-Mexico border security and gasoline and energy costs, and like bullies for wanting to strengthen IRS tax law enforcement.

Before debate began Saturday, the bill's prescription drug price curbs were diluted by the Senate's nonpartisan parliamentarian. Elizabeth MacDonough, who referees questions about the chamber's procedures, said a provision should fall that would impose costly penalties on drug makers whose price increases for private insurers exceed inflation.

It was the bill's chief protection for the 180 million people with private health coverage they get through work or purchase themselves. Under special procedures that will let Democrats pass their bill by simple majority without the usual 60-vote margin, its provisions must be focused more on dollar-and-cents budget numbers than policy changes.

But the thrust of their pharmaceutical price language remained. That included letting Medicare negotiate what it pays for drugs for its 64 million elderly recipients, penalizing manufacturers for exceeding inflation for pharmaceuticals sold to Medicare and limiting beneficiaries' out-of-pocket drug costs to $2,000 annually.

The bill also caps Medicare patients' costs for insulin, the expensive diabetes medication, at $35 monthly. Democrats wanted to extend the $35 cap to private insurers but it ran afoul of Senate rules. Most Republicans voted to strip it from the package, though in a sign of the political potency of health costs seven GOP senators joined Democrats trying to preserve it.

The measure's final costs were being recalculated to reflect late changes, but overall it would raise more than $700 billion over a decade. The money would come from a 15% minimum tax on a handful of corporations with yearly profits above $1 billion, a 1% tax on companies that repurchase their own stock, bolstered IRS tax collections and government savings from lower drug costs.

Sinema forced Democrats to drop a plan to prevent wealthy hedge fund managers from paying less than individual income tax rates for their earnings. She also joined with other Western senators to win $4 billion to combat the region's drought.

Several Democratic senators joined the GOP-led effort to exclude some firms from the new corporate minimum tax.

The package keeps to Biden's pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $400,000 a year.

It was on the energy and environment side that compromise was most evident between progressives and Manchin, a champion of fossil fuels and his state's coal industry.

Clean energy would be fostered with tax credits for buying electric vehicles and manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines. There would be home energy rebates, funds for constructing factories building clean energy technology and money to promote climate-friendly farm practices and reduce pollution in minority communities.

Manchin won billions to help power plants lower carbon emissions plus language requiring more government auctions for oil drilling on federal land and waters. Party leaders also promised to push separate legislation this fall to accelerate permits for energy projects, which Manchin wants to include a nearly completed natural gas pipeline in his state.

FORT MYERS BEACH, Fla.  — Monday saw the start of a temporary split access plan for the town of Fort Myers Beach, which will only allow residents on the island Wednesdays through Sundays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the foreseeable future.

According to Councilman Bill Veach, this was a request set by Lee County to speed up the debris removal process.

"It feels like your heart got torn out," said Steve Duello, a resident of Fort Myers Beach. “My mom and dad brought it in ’83.”

Duello is completely heartbroken after losing his family home of nearly 40 years because of Hurricane Ian. He said his cinderblock home was like a fortress and where he and his family escaped Missouri's bitterly cold winters.

“We spend about seven to eight months of the year down here; my grandkids love it. My boys and their wives all love it,” Duelllo said.

But through love comes pain. Duello said his home would be flattened—even more painful, he said, was learning about the town's decision to restrict what days residents like him have access to their property.

“It’s the worst thing I’ve gone through; there are a lot of worst things to go through, but this is my worst,” Duello said.

Veach's response to residents who are heartbroken about the limited access was that if the debris removal process isn't conducted in a timely manner, it will have a high cost.

"This was actually brought up by the county. The county was gracious enough to take over debris removal, which is a huge expense," Veach explained.

An expense that he said could cost millions of dollars. Veach added that debris removal is a top priority, mainly with the hard deadline set by FEMA.

"We have 60 days to do that,” Veach said.

After those 60 days, FEMA will stop covering the costs, leaving a bill of millions.

"If we end up getting straddled with the expenses—even a small portion, it could bankrupt the town,“ Veach said.

This is why the county requested to limit residents on the island on certain days while essential response teams are working.

“When they are stuck in traffic like we were stuck in traffic, they are not doing their job,” Councilman Veach said.

The town announced that 96 percent of power lines had been restored on Estero Boulevard, which gave Duello a silver lining to his dark cloud.

“It’s nice to see some light on Estero Boulevard. Things have been so dark and gloomy,” Duello said. "Now there’s at least some lights on. So yeah, it is a little bit good. I’m struggling to find anything good right now."

Councilman Veach said with so much "devastation" on the island. The county isn't sure if it can get all the debris removed in 60 days and might have to request another extension from FEMA.

Briana Brownlee at WFTX first reported this story.

WASHINGTON —

Related video above: Doctors give their top tips for maximizing an appointment

The next time you message your doctor to ask about a pesky cough or an itchy rash, you may want to check your bank account first — you could get a bill for the question.

Hospital systems around the country are rolling out fees for some messages that patients send to physicians, who they say are spending an increasing amount of time poring over online queries, some so complex that they require the level of medical expertise normally dispensed during an office visit.

Patient advocates, however, worry these new fees may deter people from reaching out to their doctor and that they add another layer of complexity to the U.S. health care system's already opaque billing process.

"This is a barrier that denies access and will result in hesitancy or fear to communicate and potentially harm patients with lower quality of care and outcomes at a much higher cost," said Cynthia Fisher, the founder of Patient Rights Advocate, a Massachusetts-based nonprofit that pushes for hospital price transparency.

The explosion of telehealth over the last three years — driven by the COVID-19 outbreak and relaxed federal regulations for online care — prompted many doctors to adopt more robust telecommunication with their patients. Consultations that once happened in an office were converted to computer or smart phone visits. And health care systems invited patients to use new online portals to message their doctors with a question at any time, American Medical Association president Jack Resneck Jr. told The Associated Press.

"When people figured out this is cool and could improve care, you saw hospitals and practice groups saying to patients, welcome to your portal ... you can ping your physician with questions if you want," Resneck said. "We found ourselves as physicians getting dozens and dozens of these a day and not having time built in to do that work."

The charges vary for each patient and hospital system, with messages costing as little as $3 for Medicare patients to as much $160 for the uninsured. In some cases, the final bill depends on how much time the doctor spends responding.

Health systems that have introduced these new policies, many in recent months, say they automatically alert patients that they may be charged when they message their doctor through online portals, such as MyChart, an online system that many organizations now use for scheduling appointments or releasing test results to patients.

Under new billing rules devised during the pandemic, doctors are permitted to bill Medicare for as little as 5 minutes of time spent on an online message in a seven-day period, according to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare.

Doctors need to be paid for the time they spend doling out expert medical advice — even over messages, said University of Chicago health economist Katherine Baicker. But it's also important that hospital systems are transparent about what patients can expect to pay as they roll out these new charges, she added.

"Co-pays do not accomplish anything when they are not clear for patients ahead of time," Baicker said.

Physicians at University of California San Francisco Health field roughly 900,000 email threads — 3 million total messages — in a year, according to Jess Berthold, a spokesperson for the system.

The hospital announced in November 2021 it would start charging for some of those messages, after noting a spike during the pandemic. During a year's time, 1.4% of email threads, or about 13,000, have resulted in a bill.

Only certain messages trigger a charge. Patients won't be charged, for example, for prescription refills, scheduling an appointment, asking a follow-up question about an office visit within the last seven days, or if their doctor advises they should schedule a visit in response.

What types of messages will prompt a bill? Sending your doctor a picture of a new rash, asking for a form to be filled out or requesting a change in medication.

Navigating how much you might end up owing can be trickier.

At UCSF, patients on Medicaid who message their doctor won't have any out-of-pocket costs, and those on traditional Medicare may have to pay $3 to $6. Patients on private insurance will be billed a co-pay — typically about $20 — as will patients on Medicare Advantage, the private insurance plans for Medicare.

Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, the latest major hospital system to announce charges for online messages, rolled out similar guidelines late last month, with messages costing as much as $50 for those on private insurance. And at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, which charges $35 for some messages, fewer than 1% of those correspondences resulted in a bill, spokesman Christopher King said.

All of those systems use the online portal MyChart. Epic, the privately owned software company that runs MyChart, does not track which health systems charge patients for messages, spokeswoman Barb Herandez said in an email. The company did not answer questions about whether it receives a share of the fees from those charges.

Giving patients advice online can save a patient time or money in the long run, hospital systems argue. If the doctor can answer a patient's question over email, the patient can cut out wait times for an appointment and avoid taking time off work to go to the doctor's office.

Plus, some patients simply prefer the convenience of getting a quick answer from the doctor on an app, Berthold of UCSF added.

"If patients can have access to a doctor right when questions or concerns arise, they can seek care more quickly and be treated more quickly," Berthold said.

But Fisher argues it could have the opposite effect with patients thinking twice before they message a doctor. Instead, some people may turn to free, unreliable advice online.

"It becomes a slippery slope, and that slippery slope is not in favor of the patient," she said.

CINCINNATI —

After allegedly firing shots at a candidate for Louisville mayor, Quintez Brown, getting to walk out of jail and go home, where he'll await his next court hearing.

A bail group paid his $100,000 bond, now sparking discussion about a House bill aimed at stopping scenarios like this from happening.

"I tend to think the courts would uphold it but there are arguments on both sides," NKU Chase College of Law professor Ken Katkin said.

House Bill 313, filed by state lawmaker Jason Nemes, would outlaw bail groups like the Louisville Community Bail Fund, the group that released Brown until he faces a judge.

Katkin thinks Brown didn't need bond posted in the first place.

"It would be a very reasonable and permissible conclusion for the judge to reach that this person would pose a danger to the community and doesn't need to have bail available at any level," Katkin said.

He said the purpose of bond is to ensure people show up to court, and bail groups could impact that possibility.

"If I was bailed out of jail by a thousand anonymous strangers and I didn't know who they were, and they're only going to lose a little bit of money each if I don't show up in court, maybe I won't show up in court, right?" Katkin said.

He also mentioned that it's harder for poorer people to make bail.

"If the purpose is to secure that somebody will show up at trial, I think that's going to be constitutional. If the purpose is to just make an unequal justice between richer defendants and poorer defendants, I think that's going to be unconstitutional," Katkin said.

Bail groups have been controversial in Ohio as well.

Shameka Parrish-Wright is an advocate for them, working with The Bail Project.

"What makes me sleep at night is 94 percent of the people that we bail out do not go onto prison," Parrish-Wright said.

Hamilton County prosecutor Joe Deters thinks moves like this could be detrimental.

"I think a guy with multiple gun offenses, getting out is a risk to the community," Deters said.

The candidate for mayor, Craig Greenberg, is OK. The bullet ended up grazing his sweater.

He said the news of Brown's release had him and his family traumatized again.

Days before the anniversary of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced the Senate will vote on filibuster rules changes to advance stalled voting legislation that Democrats say is needed to protect democracy.

In a letter Monday to colleagues, Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate “must evolve” and will “debate and consider” the rules changes by Jan. 17, on or before Martin Luther King Jr. Day, as the Democrats seek to overcome Republican opposition to their elections law package.

“Let me be clear: January 6th was a symptom of a broader illness — an effort to delegitimize our election process," Schumer wrote, “and the Senate must advance systemic democracy reforms to repair our republic or else the events of that day will not be an aberration — they will be the new norm.”

The election and voting rights package has been stalled in the evenly-split 50-50 Senate, blocked by a Republican-led filibuster and leaving Democrats unable to mount the 60-vote threshold needed to advance it toward passage.

Democrats have been unable to agree among themselves over potential changes to the Senate rules to reduce the 60-vote hurdle, despite months of private negotiations.

Two holdout Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have tried to warn their party off changes to the Senate rules, arguing that if and when Republicans take majority control of the chamber, they could use the lower voting threshold to advance bills Democrats oppose.

President Joe Biden has waded cautiously into the debate — a former senator who largely stands by existing rules but is also under enormous political pressure to break the logjam on the voting legislation.

How the Senate rules would be changed remains under discussion.

Voting rights advocates warn that Republican-led states are passing election legislation and trying to install elections officials loyal to the former president, Donald Trump, in ways that could subvert future elections.

Trump urged his followers last Jan. 6 to “fight like hell” for his presidency, and a mob stormed the Capitol trying to stop Congress from certifying the state election tallies for Biden. It was the worst domestic attack on the seat of government in U.S. history.

WASHINGTON —

Video above: U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin meet with Israeli counterpart at the Pentagon to discuss military readiness against Iran and shared security interest in the region

President Joe Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, authorizing $768.2 billion in military spending, including a 2.7% pay raise for service members, for 2022.

The NDAA authorizes a 5% increase in military spending, and is the product of intense negotiations between Democrats and Republicans over issues ranging from reforms of the military justice system to COVID-19 vaccine requirements for soldiers.

“The Act provides vital benefits and enhances access to justice for military personnel and their families, and includes critical authorities to support our country’s national defense,” Biden said Monday in a statement.

The $768.2 billion price tag marks $25 billion more than Biden initially requested from Congress, a prior proposal that was rejected by members of both parties out of concerns it would undermine U.S. efforts to keep pace militarily with China and Russia.

The new bill passed earlier this month with bipartisan support, with Democrats and Republicans touting wins in the final package.

Democrats applauded provisions in the bill overhauling how the military justice system handles sexual assault and other related crimes, effectively taking prosecutorial jurisdiction over such crimes out of the hands of military commanders.

Republicans, meanwhile, touted success in blocking an effort to add women to the draft, as well as the inclusion of a provision that bars dishonorable discharges for service members who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine.

The bill includes $7.1 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and a statement of congressional support for the defense of Taiwan, measures intended to counteract China’s influence in the region.

It also includes $300 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a show of support in the face of Russian aggression, as well as $4 billion for the European Defense Initiative.

In his statement, the president also outlined a number of provisions his administration opposes over what he characterized as “constitutional concerns or questions of construction.”

Those plans include provisions that restrict the use of funds to transfer or release individuals detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which the Biden administration is moving to close. Biden’s statement said the provisions "unduly impair” the executive branch’s ability to decide when and where to prosecute detainees and where to send them when they’re released, and could constrain U.S. negotiations with foreign countries over the transfer of detainees in a way that could undermine national security.

The law also has provisions barring goods produced by forced Uyghur labor in China from entering the U.S., and it begins to lay out plans for the new Global War on Terror Memorial, which would be the latest addition to the National Mall.

WASHINGTON —

President Joe Biden's signature on a $1 trillion infrastructure bill represents a historic achievement at a time of deeply fractured politics. But the compromises needed to bridge the political divide suggest that the spending might not be as transformative as Biden has promised for the U.S. economy.

Faced with flagging support as the U.S. continues to slog through a pandemic and rising inflation, the president has treated infrastructure as proof that government can function again. Ahead of Monday's signing ceremony, he instructed his Cabinet on Friday to rigorously police the coming investments in roads, bridges, water systems, broadband, ports, electric vehicles and the power grid to ensure they pay off.

"It's hard, but we can still come together to get something big done for the American people," Biden said. "It will create millions of new jobs. It will grow the economy. And we'll win the world economic competition that we're engaged in in the second quarter of the 21st century with China and many other countries around the world."

Biden held off on signing the hard-fought infrastructure deal after it passed on Nov. 5 until legislators would be back from a congressional recess and could join in a splashy bipartisan event. The gathering Monday on the White House lawn will include governors and mayors of both parties and labor and business leaders. On Sunday night before the signing, the White House announced Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor, would coordinate the implementation of the infrastructure spending.

The president began the process of selling it to the broader public with a trip last week to the Port of Baltimore. He'll go to New Hampshire on Tuesday to visit a bridge on the state's "red list" for repair and to Detroit on Wednesday for a stop at General Motors' electric vehicle assembly plant.

In order to achieve a bipartisan deal, the president had to cut back his initial ambition to spend $2.3 trillion on infrastructure by more than half. The bill that becomes law on Monday in reality includes about $550 billion in new spending over 10 years, since some of the expenditures in the package were already planned. Yet the administration still views the bill as a national project with a broad range of investments and the potential ways to improve people's lives with clean drinking water and high-speed internet.

Historians, economists and engineers interviewed by The Associated Press welcomed Biden's efforts. But they stressed that $1 trillion was not nearly enough to overcome the government's failure for decades to maintain and upgrade the country's infrastructure. The politics essentially forced a trade-off in terms of potential impact not just on the climate but on the ability to outpace the rest of the world this century and remain the dominant economic power.

"We've got to be sober here about what our infrastructure gap is in terms of a level of investment and go into this eyes wide open, that this is not going to solve our infrastructure problems across the nation," said David Van Slyke, dean of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

Biden also tried unsuccessfully to tie the infrastructure package to passage of a broader package of $1.85 trillion in proposed spending on families, health care and a shift to renewable energy that could help address climate change. That measure has yet to gain sufficient support from the narrow Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. Biden continues to work to appease skeptics of the broader package such as Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., while also holding on to the most liberal Democrats.

The haggling over infrastructure has shown that Biden can still bring together Democrats and Republicans, even as tensions continue to mount over the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump who falsely believe that Biden was not legitimately elected president. Yet the result is a product that might not meet the existential threat of climate change or the transformative legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whose portrait hangs in Biden's Oval Office.

"Yes, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is a big deal," said Peter Norton, a history professor in the University of Virginia's engineering department. "But the bill is not transformational, because most of it is more of the same."

Norton compared the limited action on climate change to the start of World War II, when Roosevelt and Congress reoriented the entire U.S. economy after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Within two months, there was a ban on auto production. Dealerships had no new cars to sell for four years as factories focused on weapons and war materiel. To conserve fuel consumption, a national speed limit of 35 mph was introduced.

"The emergency we face today warrants a comparable emergency response," Norton said.

For his part, Biden has treated compromise as both a necessity and a virtue. It's evidence to the rest of the world that democracies can function and counters the economic and technological rise of an authoritarian China. When the agreement with Republican senators was first announced in June, he noted that everyone had to give up a little in order to achieve an infrastructure deal that eluded former presidents Barack Obama and Trump.

"Neither side got everything they want in this deal," Biden said at the time. "That's what it means to compromise."

The agreement ultimately got support from 19 Senate Republicans, including Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell. Thirteen House Republicans also voted for the infrastructure bill. An angry Trump issued a statement attacking "Old Crow" McConnell and other Republicans for cooperating on "a terrible Democrat Socialist Infrastructure Plan."

McConnell says the country "desperately needs" the new infrastructure money but has indicated that he plans to skip Monday's signing ceremony.

There are multiple ways of analyzing the size of the infrastructure bill. White House aides anchored their research to the historical benchmark of building the interstate highway system from 1957 to 1966. By that metric, Biden can rightly claim that the additional $550 billion in infrastructure spending would be more than double the cost of the highway system when adjusted by inflation.

But the bill also addresses years of deferred repairs and the removal of lead water pipes, reflecting the fact that the government failed to adequately fund infrastructure for several decades. Judged by the size of the need, Biden's spending is merely a start to close a massive gap.

Yale University economist Ray Fair studied the size of the U.S. infrastructure gap in a September research paper. He found a sharp decline in infrastructure investment as a percent of the overall U.S. economy starting in 1970, a trend shared by no other country, though some nations did begin to invest less in infrastructure somewhat later.

"The overall results thus suggest that the United States became less future-oriented, less concerned with future generations, beginning around 1970," Fair concluded. "This change has persisted."

When Fair looked at Biden's infrastructure bill, he examined the size of the shortfall if infrastructure investments had continued at the 1970 pace. He found that Biden's spending covered about 10% of a $5.2 trillion gap.

"The bottom line is that the current infrastructure bill is quite modest," Fair said.

WASHINGTON —

Deadline-driven, President Joe Biden brought two pivotal senators to his Delaware home Sunday for talks aimed at resolving the disputes that have stymied the Democrats' wide-ranging social safety net and environmental measure at the core of his domestic agenda.

Beyond the domestic timetable, Biden is pressing for progress so he can spotlight his administration's achievements to world leaders at overseas summits that get underway this week.

Related video above: Biden CNN town hall recap

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she expected an agreement on a framework by week's end, paving the way for a House vote on a separate $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill before next Sunday, when a series of transportation programs will lapse.

“That’s the plan,” she said.

The White House said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., came to Biden's home in Wilmington, where he was spending the weekend, for the session but did not immediately provide a statement detailing what was discussed.

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., two of their party's most moderate members, have insisted on reducing the size of the enormous package and have pressed for other changes.

Pelosi said she was waiting for the Senate to wrap up talks and was expecting a plan to be introduced as early as Monday. Top Democrats are scrambling to have a framework so they can move to pass the infrastructure bill, which progressives in the House have held up as leverage to force an agreement on the bigger package of health care, education and environment initiatives.

“I think we’re pretty much there,” said Pelosi, stressing that a few “last decisions” need to be made. "It is less than what was projected to begin with, but it’s still bigger than anything we have ever done in terms of addressing the needs of America’s working families.”

Democrats initially planned that the measure would contain $3.5 trillion worth of spending and tax initiatives over 10 years. But demands by moderates led by Manchin and Sinema to contain costs mean its final price tag could well be less than $2 trillion.

Disputes remain over whether some priorities must be cut or excluded. These include plans to expand Medicare coverage, child care assistance and helping lower-income college students. Manchin, whose state has a major coal industry, has opposed proposals to penalize utilities that do not switch quickly to clean energy.

Pelosi said Democrats were still working to keep in provisions for four weeks of paid family leave but acknowledged that other proposals such as expanding Medicare to include dental coverage could prove harder to save because of cost. “Dental will take a little longer to implement,” she said.

Also expected to be trimmed is a clean energy proposal that was the centerpiece of Biden’s strategy for fighting climate change. Biden has set a goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030. But Manchin has made clear he opposes the initial clean energy proposal, which was to have the government impose penalties on electric utilities that fail to meet clean energy benchmarks and provide financial rewards to those that do.

Democrats were hoping Biden could cite major accomplishments when he attends a global conference in Scotland on climate change in early November after attending a summit of world leaders in Rome.

Sen. Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the expected cuts to the clean energy provisions in the spending bill were especially disappointing because “it weakens Joe Biden’s hands in Glasgow."

“If we’re going to get the rest of the world to take serious steps to remedy this problem, we’ve got to do it ourselves,” he said.

Pelosi insisted that Democrats had pieced together other policies in the spending bill that could reduce emissions. “We will have something that will meet the president’s goals,” she said.

The White House and congressional leaders have tried to push monthslong negotiations toward a conclusion by the end of October. Democrats’ aim is to produce an outline by then that would spell out the overall size of the measure and describe policy goals that leaders as well as progressives and moderates would endorse.

The wide-ranging measure carries many of Biden's top domestic priorities. Party leaders want to end internal battles, avert the risk that the effort could fail and focus voters' attention on the plan's popular programs for helping families with child care, health costs and other issues.

Democrats also want to make progress that could help Democrat Terry McAuliffe win a neck-and-neck Nov. 2 gubernatorial election in Virginia.

The hope is that an agreement between the party's two factions would create enough trust to let Democrats finally push through the House the separate $1 trillion package of highway and broadband projects.

That bipartisan measure was approved over the summer by the Senate. But it stalled after House progressives pulled their support due to disagreements on the bigger spending bill, causing Congress to miss an initial deadline in late September and to rush to approve stopgap money for lapsing transportation programs. Pelosi later set an Oct. 31 target for passage of the infrastructure bill, though lawmakers already have slipped past last Friday's goal set by Democratic leaders to reach agreement on the spending package.

With Republicans fully opposed to Biden’s spending plans, the president needs all Democrats in the 50-50 split Senate for passage and can only spare a few votes in the House.

Rep. Ro Khanna, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, maintained that his caucus will not budge on supporting the infrastructure bill before Oct. 31 if there is no agreement on the broader package, which would be passed under so-called budget reconciliation rules.

“The president needs the reconciliation agreement to go to Glasgow,” said Khanna, D-Calif. “That’s what is going to deal with climate change, that’s what’s going to hit his goals of 50% reduction by 2030. I’m confident we will have an agreement.”

Pelosi spoke on CNN's “State of the Union," King appeared on NBC's “Meet the Press" and Khanna on “Fox News Sunday.”

___

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro and Associated Press writer Alan Fram contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON —

The Biden administration on Thursday put final touches on consumer protections against so-called "surprise" medical bills. The ban on charges that hit insured patients at some of life's most vulnerable moments will take effect Jan. 1.

Patients will no longer have to worry about getting a huge bill following a medical crisis if the closest hospital emergency room happened to have been outside their insurance plan's provider network. They'll also be protected from unexpected charges if an out-of-network clinician takes part in a surgery or procedure conducted at an in-network hospital.

The rules released Thursday detail a key part of the new system: a behind-the-scenes dispute resolution process that hospitals, doctors and insurers will use to haggle over fees. When an insurer and a service provider disagree over fair payment, either side can initiate a 30-day negotiation process. If they still can't come to an agreement, they can take the matter to an independent arbitrator.

There's also a new way for uninsured people and certain patients who pay their own way to get an estimate of charges following an emergency procedure.

"We're hoping to give folks a sigh of relief, who have been blindsided by billing," said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

Surprise medical bills have been a common problem for people with health insurance, all the more irritating because most patients might have thought they were protected. Charges running from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars came from doctors and hospitals outside the network of patients' health insurance plans. It's estimated that about 1 in 5 emergency visits and 1 in 6 inpatient admissions triggered a surprise bill.

Although many states already have curbs on surprise billing, federal action was needed to protect patients covered by large employer plans, which are regulated at the national level. A 2020 law signed by then-President Donald Trump laid out a bipartisan strategy for resolving the issue, and the Biden administration filled in critical details.

The idea was to take patients and their families out of the financial equation by limiting what they can be billed for out-of-network services to a fee that's based on in-network charges. That amount gets counted toward their in-network annual deductible.

The new protections are aimed at:

• Protecting patients from surprise bills arising from emergency medical care. Protections apply if the patient is seen at an out-of-network facility, or if they are treated by an out-of-network clinician at an in-network hospital. In either case, the patient can only be billed based on their plan's in-network rate.
• Protecting patients admitted to an in-network hospital for a planned procedure when an out-of-network clinician gets involved and submits a bill.
• Requiring out-of-network service providers to give patients 72-hour notice of their estimated charges. Patients would have to agree to receive out-of-network care for the hospital or doctor to then bill them.

Before the ban on surprise billing, patients usually had to take the initiative themselves to work out unexpected charges. In many cases the hospital or doctor would go back and forth with the insurance company until they reached an agreement. But there was no guarantee that would happen, and patients were at risk of being placed into collection proceedings in situations they had no control over.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Senate Bill 1 in Texas was signed into law by Governor Abbott on Tuesday. It was authored by Texas Republican State Senator Bryan Hughes.

“Everyone needs to know their vote is gonna count and be counted accurately," Sen. Hughes said. "Our goal is to make it easy to vote, and hard to cheat.”

According to Sen. Hughes, the law expands and standardizes in-person voting, requires an online portal to correct ballot mistakes and cracks down on people accused of misleading voters.

“Many of them in minority communities, many of them with limited English proficiency who have a hard time, sometimes with the voting process, they're the ones being taken advantage of being coerced, having their votes stolen," Sen. Hughes said. "But we're going to stand up for them.”

Republicans call it the voting integrity bill. Those opposed deem it a voting restriction bill, like Sophia Lin Lakin, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union Voting Rights Project.

“You have more and more states emboldened to ultimately enact the voter suppression bills that are being introduced across legislatures across the country," Lakin said. "We have more than 400 anti-voter bills that have been introduced just this past cycle, and it's a full-scale assault on voting rights in response to record levels of turnout that we saw in the 2020 Presidential Election.”

Lakin says SB 1 in Texas restricts voters by taking away drive-through voting and mail-in ballots from populations that disproportionately used those methods this past election.

“States are going after Black and brown voters by targeting the kinds of ways and the tools that Black and brown voters are using in order to make their voices heard," Lakin said. "So, you see a tax on mail voting, for example, in Texas and in many other places as well.”

In order to vote by mail in Texas, Sen. Hughes says you need to be 65 or over, have a disability, or be out of the country to vote by mail.

"We like voting in person,” Sen. Hughes said.

Sen. Hughes says voting in person limits the potential for fraud. However, Alex Keyssar, Stirling Professor of History and Social Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, says there is extremely little voting fraud in the United States.

“These laws do not seem designed to really protect any compelling state interest in preventing fraud. They seem designed to make it harder for certain people to vote,“ Keyssar said. "We have significant populations that are known to vote Democratic. I mean, the African-American population votes overwhelmingly Democratic, poor people vote overwhelmingly Democratic. So if you can keep those people from voting, that's going to benefit the Republican Party.”

He says what you do see in our voting history, are rules that made it more difficult for certain populations to vote.

“You know, New York State, for example, passed an English language literacy requirement to vote in the early 1920s," Keyssar said. "And a lot of states passed laws, for example, that you had to bring your citizenship papers. They did not pass laws that say you can't vote because you're Black, because that would have been clearly unconstitutional, so they passed laws that made it difficult to vote if you were Black.”

Keyssar says the federal government tends to step in when it becomes clear that when left to their own devices, states will be discriminatory.

“My hope is that there will be a federal response here that we will see some federal action and in and as a result, we'll have many of the tools that we've had before and restored to their full robustness and that will bring a much more, much more close to closer to a democracy in which every person who is eligible to vote is able to vote without discrimination, without unnecessary obstacles, without being targeted,” Lakin said.

For Texas Republicans, the law which goes into effect next election cycle is a big success. Sen. Hughes says he wants to protect everyone’s vote.

“When more people show up, we all win,” Sen. Hughes said.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Democrats in the Senate said Wednesday that they're reintroducing a bill that would make Washington, D.C. the nation’s 51^st state.

However, even though Democrats now control the Senate, the chances of the legislation passing are not good.

U.S. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. is leading the group of senators and working with House Democrats to grant D.C. statehood.

The bill, which Caper first introduced in 2013, would give D.C. full representation in Congress and also ensure its elected leaders have full authority over local affairs, including safety and security measures.

“Our nation’s capital is home to more than 700,000 Americans who, despite our nation’s founding mantra — ‘no taxation without representation’ — pay their share of taxes without full voting representation in either chamber of Congress,” said Carper in a statement. “In fact, despite paying more in federal taxes per capita than citizens of any of the 50 states, D.C. residents have no say in how those taxes are actually spent.”

Right now, the district only has one representative in the House, Rep. Eleanor Norton, who introduced a companion bill that passed by a vote of 232-180 last year. Statehood would allow D.C. to elect two U.S. senators, which would likely fall to the Democrats.

“This isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue; it’s an American issue because the lack of fair representation for D.C. residents is clearly inconsistent with the values on which this country was founded,” Carper continued. “It is therefore incumbent upon all of us who enjoy the right and the privilege of full voting rights and representation to take up the cause of our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia.”

The legislation, titled, The Washington, D.C. Admission Act, would also designate the areas surrounding the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the National Mall as the seat of the federal government. That area would inherit the name “the Capitol” and remain under control of Congress.

D.C. residents have also voted overwhelmingly to petition the federal government grant them statehood. A November 2016 referendum approved a name, constitution, and boundaries for what would become the new state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth (D.C.).

President Joe Biden has voiced his support for D.C. statehood, but the chances of the bill passing in the Senate are slim. Democrats would need to overcome the filibuster, meaning they’d need 60 votes. Right now, both parties have 50 senators, with Vice President Kamala Harris casting tiebreaking votes.

The massive $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package is poised for a final vote in the Senate on Tuesday morning after clearing the last procedural hurdle following months of furious negotiations.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Monday evening that Republicans and Democrats have reached an agreement for final passage of the bill on Tuesday at 11 a.m. ET. Once the bill passes the Senate, it will go to the House of Representatives.

"This is a very good day," Schumer said in floor remarks on Monday night. "We have come to an agreement after all the long hard negotiating, the stops and starts, we're here. And it's a good thing, a very good thing for America."

"The Senate can be proud it has passed this," he added. "And as we move forward we're proceeding on both tracks. The track of the bipartisan infrastructure proposal, and the track of the budget resolution with reconciliation instructions. On our side of the aisle, we know we need both tracks: one dealing with traditional infrastructure, one dealing with climate and the problems American families face."

Once the bipartisan bill has passed, the Senate will quickly shift their attention to the budget resolution, which needs to pass both chambers of Congress first before Democrats can move on their separate $3.5 trillion package, which they hope they can pass with Democratic votes.

Democrats unveiled that budget resolution on Monday. The budget resolution summary lays out Democrats' plan to invest in four major buckets: families, climate, health care, and infrastructure and jobs. It notably does not include an expansion of the US national debt, as Republicans have pushed Democrats to do.

As Senate Democrats released text of the budget resolution with reconciliation instructions on Monday morning, Schumer reiterated this "is the first step in unlocking the legislative process for a budget reconciliation bill later this year."

"The Democratic budget will the most significant legislation for American families since the era of the New Deal and the Great Society. It is big, bold change. The kind of change America thirsts for," he said.

Lawmakers have been inching toward a final vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill for days, considering 22 amendments to the package last week after the legislative text was finalized the previous weekend. On Saturday, the Senate voted to break a filibuster and advance the bill.

"We are within days, possibly within hours of seeing this historic legislation that's going to get us better roads and bridges, better ports and airports, a better future for our economy and creating millions of jobs," Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told Fox News on Sunday morning.

"We're on the cusp of seeing that move through the Senate."

The massive bipartisan infrastructure package, called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, is the culmination of drawn-out and painstaking negotiations between a bipartisan group of senators and the Biden administration and will allow both parties to claim a win after extensive work across the aisle.

It features $550 billion in new federal spending over five years. The measure invests $110 billion in funding toward roads, bridges and major projects, $66 billion in passenger and freight rail, $65 billion to rebuild the electric grid, $65 billion to expand broadband Internet access, and $39 billion to modernize and expand transit systems.

Among many other priorities, the bill also includes $55 billion for water infrastructure, $15 billion of which will be directed toward replacing lead pipes.

And while senators are confident the bill will pass, the legislation faces an uncertain future in the House.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated that the chamber won't take up the bipartisan bill until Senate Democrats pass their larger social, environmental infrastructure package -- a position that continues to be met with criticism from Republicans and some moderate Democrats alike.

The GOP senators who support the bipartisan infrastructure bill note that there are major differences between their bill and the Democratic package. They say it's essential for Republicans to show that they're not just a knee-jerk opposition party and can instead find consensus on pressing national problems important to voters.

But a report from the Congressional Budget Office that found the bipartisan package will "add $256 billion to projected deficits" between 2021 and 2031 has complicated deliberations for some GOP senators.

Republican Sen. Todd Young, who initially endorsed the bipartisan deal and had previously voted to cut off debate, announced Sunday evening that he will vote against the bill. The Indiana Republican, who faces reelection next year, pointed to the CBO's scoring of the legislation and said he is not "comfortable with a number of the Democratic priorities contained in this version."

"As I've said many times, while I'm eager for a bill that makes these investments, I'm also committed to doing so in a fiscally responsible way," he said in a statement.

South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Republican whip who hasn't hadn't yet declared whether he's running for another term next year, hadn't ruled out as of last week supporting the bill on final passage. But he had a warning for the GOP.

"I think the politics work for both sides," Thune, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said. "I think that if you're a Republican you want to prove that you're not just here to completely block and stop the entire agenda if you find areas that are good for, you know, the country and then you want to be a part of trying to solve those problems."

The House approved a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill early Saturday in a win for President Joe Biden, even as top Democrats tried assuring agitated progressives that they’d revive their derailed drive to boost the minimum wage.

The new president’s vision for flushing cash to individuals, businesses, states and cities battered by COVID-19 passed on a near party-line 219-212 vote. That ships the massive measure to the Senate, where Democrats seem bent on resuscitating their minimum wage push and fights could erupt over state aid and other issues.

Democrats said the still-faltering economy and the half-million American lives lost demanded quick, decisive action. GOP lawmakers, they said, were out of step with a public that polling shows largely views the bill favorably.

The relief bill would provide millions of people with $1,400 direct payments. It contains billions of dollars for vaccines and COVID-19 testing, schools, state and local governments, the ailing restaurant and airline industries and emergency jobless benefits while providing tax breaks to lower earners and families with children.

The House COVID-19 bill includes the minimum wage increase, so the real battle over its fate will occur when the Senate debates its version over the next two weeks.

“I am a happy camper tonight," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said Friday. “This is what America needs. Republicans, you ought to be a part of this. But if you're not, we're going without you."

It's Biden’s first crack at his initial legislative goal of acting decisively against the pandemic. In the year since the coronavirus has taken hold, it has stalled much of the economy, killed half a million Americans and reshaped the daily lives of virtually everyone.

Republicans said the bill was too expensive and said too few education dollars would be spent quickly to immediately reopen schools. They said it was laden with gifts to Democratic constituencies like labor unions and funneled money to Democratic-run states they suggested didn't need it because their budgets had bounced back.

“To my colleagues who say this bill is bold, I say it's bloated," said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “To those who say it's urgent, I say it's unfocused. To those who say it's popular, I say it is entirely partisan.”

Republicans have also said it’s not targeted enough at the people and businesses that most need it and a grab bag of gifts for Democratic allies.

The House bill would also hoist the federal minimum wage to $15 hourly by 2025, more than doubling the current $7.25 floor that's been in effect since 2019.

But that proposal seemed highly likely to die in the Senate after that chamber's parliamentarian said Thursday that the cherished progressive goal must be dropped from the relief legislation, Senate Democratic aides said.

The finding by Elizabeth MacDonough, the chamber’s nonpartisan arbiter of its rules, means Democrats face an overwhelmingly uphill battle to boost the minimum wage this year in the face of solid Republican opposition.

Biden, a supporter of the $15 increase, was “disappointed” in the outcome but respected the parliamentarian's ruling, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said. The Senate has a long tradition of heeding the parliamentarian's decisions with few exceptions, a history that is revered by traditionalists like Biden, a 36-year Senate veteran.

“He will work with leaders in Congress to determine the best path forward because no one in this country should work full time and live in poverty,” Psaki said.

Democrats are pushing the massive coronavirus relief measure through Congress under special rules that will let them avoid a Senate filibuster by Republicans, a tactic that Democrats would need an unattainable 60 votes to defeat.

But those same Senate rules prohibit provisions with only an “incidental” impact on the federal budget because they are chiefly driven by other policy purposes. MacDonough said the minimum wage provision didn’t pass that test, according to aides who described her decision on condition of anonymity because it hadn’t been released.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the minimum wage plan would remain in that chamber's legislation anyway, saying, “House Democrats believe that the minimum wage hike is necessary.”

She probably had little choice — many House Democrats are progressives who are insistent that the party fight for the wage boost. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a leading sponsor of the minimum wage increase, said Democats shouldn't be bowed by “the advisory opinion of the parliamentarian and Republican obstructionism.”

Democrats can afford little dissension over the minimum wage or anything else in the COVID-19 relief bill. They have no votes to spare in the 50-50 Senate.

Democrats are aiming to get the legislation to Biden’s desk by mid-March.

Republicans oppose the $15 minimum wage target as an expense that would hurt businesses and cost jobs.

MacDonough's decision might actually make passage of the overall relief bill easier because efforts to find a minimum wage compromise between progressives and moderate Democrats who'd prefer a more measured approach could have been contentious.

Democrats have said they could still pursue a minimum wage boost in free-standing legislation or attach it to legislation expected later this year that is to be aimed at a massive infrastructure program. But they’d still face the challenge of garnering 60 Senate votes, a hurdle that has upended Democratic attempts to boost the minimum wage for over a decade.

In a study that’s been cited by both sides in the clash, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the $15 minimum wage would increase pay for 27 million workers and lift 900,000 people out of poverty by 2025, but also kill 1.4 million jobs.

Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have state minimum wages that exceed the federal $7.25 hourly floor, with only the District of Columbia currently requiring a $15 minimum.

Seven states have laws putting their minimums on a pathway to $15 in a future year, according to the nonpartisan National Conference of State Legislatures.

FRANKFORT, Ky. (AP) — The Kentucky House on Friday wrapped up its quick work on legislation that would make early voting a permanent feature in the state’s elections.

The bill, introduced this week, passed the House on a 93-4 vote, sending it to the Senate. It would allow three days of no-excuse, early in-person voting — including a Saturday — ahead of Election Day.

Republican Secretary of State Michael Adams said he hopes the strong bipartisan support in the House will add to the bill’s momentum when it reaches the Senate. Adams describes it as the state’s most significant election-reform legislation in nearly three decades.

Another key part of the bill would allow counties to establish vote centers, where any voter in the county may vote regardless of precinct.

The measure continues some special features allowed in last year’s election because of the COVID-19 pandemic — most notably the early in-person voting.

Last year, pandemic-related rules for Kentucky’s general election included multiple weeks of early in-person voting to prevent a crush of Election Day voting.

Without new legislation, Kentucky’s election laws will revert to the pre-pandemic rules.

But the House-passed bill wouldn’t continue a temporary, pandemic-related accommodation that allowed widespread mail-in absentee balloting in the 2020 election.

The legislation is House Bill 574.

WASHINGTON —

The Democrats' sweeping attempt to rewrite U.S. election and voting law suffered a major setback in the Senate Tuesday, blocked by a filibuster wall of Republican opposition to what would be the largest overhaul of the electoral system in a generation.

The vote leaves the Democrats with no clear path forward, though President Joe Biden declared, "This fight is far from over."

The bill, known as the For the People Act, would touch on virtually every aspect of how elections are conducted, striking down hurdles to voting that advocates view as the Civil Rights fight of the era, while also curbing the influence of money in politics and limiting partisan influence over the drawing of congressional districts.

But many in the GOP say the measure represents instead a breathtaking federal infringement on states' authority to conduct their own elections without fraud — and is meant to ultimately benefit Democrats.

It failed on a 50-50 vote after Republicans, some of whom derided the bill as the "Screw the People Act," denied Democrats the 60 votes needed to begin debate under Senate rules. Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman to hold her office, presided over the chamber as the bill failed to break past that filibuster barrier.

Biden praised Senate Democrats for standing together "against the ongoing assault of voter suppression that represents a Jim Crow era in the 21st Century." In a statement from the White House, he said that in their actions, though unsuccessful on Tuesday, they "took the next step forward in this continuous struggle."

The rejection forces Democrats to reckon with what comes next for their top legislative priority in a narrowly divided Senate. They've touted the measure as a powerful counterweight to scores of proposals advancing in GOP-controlled statehouses making it more difficult to vote.

"Once again, the Senate Republican minority has launched a partisan blockade of a pressing issue," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said from the chamber floor. He vowed that the vote was the "starting gun" and not the last time voting rights would be up for debate.

Whatever Democrats decide, they will likely be confronted with the same challenge they faced Tuesday when minority Republicans used the filibuster — the same tool that Democrats employed during Donald Trump's presidency — to block consideration of the bill.

Republicans showed no sign of yielding.

Republican leader Mitch McConnell called the bill a "a solution looking for a problem" and vowed to "put an end to it." Texas Sen. Ted Cruz dismissed it as "partisan legislation, written by elected Democrats, designed to keep elected Democrats in office."

And, more graphically, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito called the bill "a despicable, disingenuous attempt to strip states of their constitutional right to administer elections" that "should never come close to reaching the president's desk."

Pressure has been mounting on Democrats to change Senate rules or watch their priorities languish. A group of moderate Democratic senators, however, including Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, have ruled that out, denying the votes needed to make a filibuster change.

Biden has vowed what the White House calls the "fight of his presidency" over ensuring Americans' access to voting. But without changes to Senate rules, key planks of his agenda, including the voting bill, appear stalled.

Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat and senior pastor at the Atlanta church Martin Luther King Jr. once led, called minority Republicans' willingness to prevent debate on the voting bill a "dereliction" of duty.

"What could be more hypocritical and cynical than invoking minority rights in the Senate as a pretext for preventing debate about how to preserve minority rights in the society," Warnock said during a floor speech Tuesday.

The changes being enacted in many Republican states are decried by voting rights advocates who argue the restrictions will make it more difficult for people to cast ballots, particularly minority residents who tend to support Democrats. Republicans, cheered on by Trump, talk instead about fighting potential voting fraud and say the Democrats' concerns are wildly overblown.

As the Senate discussion churns, more changes could be coming to the bill.

Democrats want to protect against intimidation at the polls in the aftermath of the 2020 election. They propose enhancing penalties for those who would threaten or intimidate election workers and creating a "buffer zone" between election workers and poll watchers, among other possible changes.

They also want to limit the ability of state officials to remove local election officials. Georgia Republicans passed a law earlier this year that gives the GOP-dominated Legislature greater influence over a state board that regulates elections and empowers it to remove local election officials deemed to be underperforming.

But Democrats have divisions of their own. Until Tuesday, it wasn't even clear that they would be united on the vote to bring the bill up for debate. Manchin, a moderate from West Virginia, announced earlier this month that he couldn't support the bill because it lacked Republican support.

Manchin flipped his vote to a "yes" after Democrats agreed to consider his revised version. His proposal was endorsed by former President Barack Obama and called a "step forward" by Biden's administration.

Manchin has proposed adding provisions for a national voter ID requirement, which is anathema to many Democrats, and dropping a proposed public financing of campaigns. The ID requirement would be less strict than ones pushed by Republicans in certain states and allow voters to provide non-photo ID such as a utility bill.

Those changes did little, however, to garner the bipartisan support Manchin was hoping for. Senate Republicans said they would likely reject any legislation that expands the federal government's role in elections. McConnell dismissed Manchin's version as "equally unacceptable."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a moderate Alaska Republican, said some aspects of the Democratic bill were laudable and she supports other voting rights legislation, like a reinstatement of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013.

But, ultimately, she said the "sprawling" bill amounted to "a one-size-fits-all mandate coming out of Washington D.C." that "in many cases doesn't work."

Months in the making, Tuesday's showdown had taken on fresh urgency as Trump continues to challenge the outcome of the 2020 election and new limits move ahead in Republican-led states.

State officials who certified the results of the 2020 election have dismissed Trump's claims of voter fraud, and judges across the country have thrown out multiple lawsuits filed by Trump and his allies. Trump's own attorney general said there was no evidence of widespread fraud that would change the outcome.

FORT HOOD, Texas — One year after Spc. Vanessa Guillen disappeared from Fort Hood in Texas, Army officials have dedicated a gate on the post in her honor.

Fort Hood command and the Guillen family gathered Monday across from the Vanessa Guillen mural in downtown Killeen for a dedication ceremony.

According to NBC News, the memorial plaque, which was installed on the gate marker, was so unveiled.

The family calls the gate a good start.

”This is a step because everyone that comes through this gate, as a soldier or someone who lives here, they’ll remind themselves that if they know somebody that is going through the same situation that my sister went through to speak up,” said Lupe Guillen, Vanessa’s sister.

The family’s lawyer says more needs to be done to protect soldiers who are victims of sexual assault and harassment, like Spc. Guillen.

”There needs to be reform, and if it required Vanessa’s death to start the reform, to start this movement, the momentum is here. We just need to solve it through legislation,” said Natalie Khawam, attorney for the Guillen family.

The fight for change is something the family plans to continue as long as they have to.

”We must demand for the #IAmVanessaGuillen Act to pass. That’s the only thing that I believe will help others,” said Lupe.

The Guillen family and Khawam are confident the legislation can pass because of the impact Spc. Guillen's story has had on the nation.

”What happened with Vanessa, what I think is that it had a lot more people take more time to reflect and think what’s the problem here and why is this happening,” said Khawam.

The Vanessa Guillen Gate is located on the corner of Fort Hood Street and Rancier directly across from her mural.

Adam Schindler at KXXV first reported this story.

FORT HOOD, TX — Spc. Vanessa Guillen was sexually harassed by a superior officer during her time at Fort Hood, Army officials revealed Friday afternoon.

The findings were part of an Army investigation conducted by Gen. John Murray, commanding general of Army Futures Command, into the Fort Hood chain-of-command following the soldier's disappearance and death.

“I directed this investigation to identify what happened and to find areas where we needed to improve across our command,” said Gen. Michael X. Garrett, commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command. “We can and must hold ourselves accountable, learn and improve across all our Army units. To do any less breaks trust with our people and the American public.”

Part of the investigation included a review of Fort Hood's actions from April 22, 2020, to July 1, 2020, under the provisions of Army Regulation 15-6.

According to officials, Spc. Guillen was sexually harassed by a superior non-commissioned officer in her unit.

She informally reported the harassment on two occasions. In both instances, her supervisor failed to report the harassment, and other leaders failed to take appropriate action.

Investigators say there is no evidence that the sexual harassment was related to Spc. Guillen's death. However, according to the report, between April 2019 and September 2019, Spc. Aaron Robinson, who is believed to have killed Spc. Guillen, sexually harassed a different female specialist at Fort Hood. The information was discovered in fall of 2020 during the 15-6 investigation.

Investigators did not find credible evidence to conclude that Spc. Robinson sexually harassed Spc. Guillen or that they had any relationship outside of work.

Investigators also did not find evidence that Spc. Guillen was sexually assaulted.

During the review, officials discovered "inadequate measures" related to the Army's Sexual Harassment and Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program. The report determined soldiers in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment and Spc. Guillen's unit were not adequately trained on sexual harassment and sexual assault prevention programs. The programs were also not sufficiently emphasized.

When reviewing the search for Spc. Guillen, investigators determined the 3rd Cavalry Regiment responded "immediately with all available resources upon the discovery that Spc. Guillen was missing on April 22 and determined that her absence was likely not voluntary." The next day, a massive search began for the soldier.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (USACIDC) took over the case on April 24, 2020, and identified Spc. Guillen as a "missing soldier" who disappeared under "unusual" circumstances.

Officials say the 15-6 investigation does not include alleged criminal misconduct connected to Spc. Guillen's disappearance and death. The criminal matters remain under investigation by the FBI, USACIDC, and other law enforcement agencies.

As a result of the overall investigation, Gen. Garrett has directed the relief of five current and former leaders in the 3rd Cavalry Regiment. This includes officers and non-commissioned officers.

Of the five, three will also receive General Officer Memorandums of Reprimand (GOMORs).

Gen. Garrett has also referred further action against seven additional officers and non-commissioned officers to Lt. Gen. Pat White, commanding general of III Corps, and further action against one non-commissioned officer to a separate command.

The eight officers and non-commissioned officers will receive GOMORs. In addition, one will be relieved of their duties.

An additional Army Regulation 15-6 investigation remains open for the 1st Cavalry Division's command climate and SHARP program at Fort Hood. Officials say it is unrelated to Spc. Guillen's death.

Fourteen Fort Hood leaders and soldiers were relieved or suspended in December 2020 following an independent review of the post.

This story was originally published Sydney Isenberg at KXXV.