Fury as more lawmakers fall asleep during early morning vote on Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still having trouble staying awake through their overnight sessions negotiating President Donald Trump 's 'big beautiful bill.'
In the middle of a session that spanned into the early hours of Wednesday morning, it was 71-year-old Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) who was caught on camera dozing off this time.
The 1:00 a.m. vote on the multi-trillion-dollar bill includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, but is widely criticized by Democrats for gutting social programs like Medicaid and food assistance.
Critics claim that Republicans are being bullied by Trump into holding the vote that's forced members of Congress to stay in session overnight on more than one occasion.
Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) tore into Norman in an X post exposing him for falling asleep around 2:15 a.m. during the consequential session.
Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) was also seen rubbing his eyes as he got sleeping during the latest overnight session from May 20-21
'Rep. Ralph Norman is ripping health care away from 13 million Americans not exciting enough to stay awake?' the 65-year-old congresswoman posted along with a video of Norman slipping into sleep.
Some on social media pointed to Norman's age as the problem, claiming there needs to be limitations on how old a serving member of Congress can be.
'We need mandatory retirement for ALL politicians in addition to term limits,' one user responded to the video. 'It's the only way to ensure relevant leadership at the top. The federal Congress and Senate shouldn't be in the Nursing Home business.'
But just a week prior during another overnight session, three other members were caught sleeping on the job – one who is relatively young compared to the average age of those serving in Congress.
Utah Republican Rep. Blake Moore, 44, was among those who was taped dozing off during the bill markup overnight from May 13 to 14. A clip shows the lawmaker being gently shaken awake by a colleague after he missed a question during his nap.
Other videos emerged that night showing 71-year-old Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and 80-year-old Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) asleep on Capitol Hill.
Other videos show the hilarious moments Republican Rep. Blake Moore (left) and Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky (right) took a snooze in the hearing room
The Wednesday morning snooze-fest sparked outrage online – as did the latest mid-session nap from Norman.
It's not clear what other lawmakers were sleeping but not caught on camera, but the late night sessions are clearly weighing on several members – Democrat and Republican alike.
'As a former lobbyist, I can tell you that sleeping on the job is one of the few things that Democrats and Republicans have in common,' one X user wrote when the latest video emerged on Wednesday morning.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘He's a bad guy': Trump backs decision to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to US to face charges
Donald Trump has called Kilmar Abrego Garcia a 'bad guy' and backed the decision to return him to the US to face criminal charges. Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador nearly three months ago under the Trump administration. He was returned to the US on Friday (6 June) and charged with trafficking migrants into the country. The charges relate to a 2022 traffic stop, during which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. Speaking to reporters on Saturday, Trump said: 'By bringing him back, you show how bad he is.' 'He's a bad guy,' he added.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
WorldPride attendees to march through Washington in defiance of Trump
WASHINGTON, June 7 (Reuters) - LGBTQ+ people from around the world will march through the streets of Washington on Saturday in a joyful celebration meant to show defiance to President Donald Trump's rollback of queer rights. The parade route will come within one block of the White House grounds in one of the final main events of the weeks-long WorldPride celebration. On Sunday a more political event, dubbed a rally and march, will convene at the Lincoln Memorial, a revered space in the U.S. civil rights movement as the site of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963. Events will play out in the U.S. capital in the wake of the Trump administration's measures to curtail LGBTQ+ rights. The Republican president has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banning transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinding anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people as part of a campaign to repeal diversity, equity and inclusion programs. While proponents of DEI consider it necessary to correct historic inequities, the White House has described it as a form of discrimination based on race or gender, and said its transgender policy protects women by keeping transgender women out of shared spaces. Moreover, the White House said it has appointed a number of openly gay people to cabinet posts or judgeships, and noted that the Trump administration took steps to decriminalize homosexuality globally, and that its 2019 initiative "Ending the HIV Epidemic" aimed to cut HIV infections by 90% by 2030. "The President is honored to serve all Americans," White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Event organizers said they were unaware of any counterprotests or anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations planned for Saturday or Sunday. The National Park Service, however, has decided to fence off Dupont Circle, a popular public space, until Sunday night at the request of the U.S. Park Police, which said closure was necessary to "secure the park, deter potential violence, reduce the risk of destructive acts and decrease the need for extensive law enforcement presences." Capital Pride Alliance, which is organizing WorldPride events, said it was "frustrated and disappointed" at the closure. "This beloved landmark is central to the community that WorldPride intends to celebrate and honor. It's much more than a park, for generations it's been a gathering place for DC's LGBTQ+ community, hosting First Amendment assemblies and memorial services for those we lost to the AIDS epidemic and following tragic events like the Pulse nightclub shooting," the alliance said.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
A $2.8 billion settlement will change college sports forever. Here's how
A federal judge has approved terms of a sprawling $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that will upend the way college sports have been run for more than a century. In short, schools can now directly pay players through licensing deals — a concept that goes against the foundation of amateurism that college sports was built upon. Some questions and answers about this monumental change for college athletics: Q: What is the House settlement and why does it matter? A: Grant House is a former Arizona State swimmer who sued the defendants (the NCAA and the five biggest athletic conferences in the nation). His lawsuit and two others were combined and over several years the dispute wound up with the settlement that ends a decades-old prohibition on schools cutting checks directly to athletes. Now, each school will be able to make payments to athletes for use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). For reference, there are nearly 200,000 athletes and 350 schools in Division I alone and 500,000 and 1,100 schools across the entire NCAA. Q: How much will the schools pay the athletes and where will the money come from? A: In Year 1, each school can share up to about $20.5 million with their athletes, a number that represents 22% of their revenue from things like media rights, ticket sales and sponsorships. Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne famously told Congress 'those are resources and revenues that don't exist.' Some of the money will come via ever-growing TV rights packages, especially for the College Football Playoff. But some schools are increasing costs to fans through 'talent fees,' concession price hikes and 'athletic fees' added to tuition costs. Q: What about scholarships? Wasn't that like paying the athletes? A: Scholarships and 'cost of attendance' have always been part of the deal for many Division I athletes and there is certainly value to that, especially if athletes get their degree. The NCAA says its member schools hand out nearly $4 billion in athletic scholarships every year. But athletes have long argued that it was hardly enough to compensate them for the millions in revenue they helped produce for the schools, which went to a lot of places, including multimillion-dollar coaches' salaries. They took those arguments to court and won. Q: Haven't players been getting paid for a while now? A: Yes, since 2021. Facing losses in court and a growing number of state laws targeting its amateurism policies, the NCAA cleared the way for athletes to receive NIL money from third parties, including so-called donor-backed collectives that support various schools. Under House, the school can pay that money directly to athletes and the collectives are still in the game. Q: But will $20.5 million cover all the costs for the athletes? A: Probably not. But under terms of the settlement, third parties are still allowed to cut deals with the players. Some call it a workaround, but most simply view this as the new reality in college sports as schools battle to land top talent and then keep them on campus. Top quarterbacks are reportedly getting paid around $2 million a year, which would eat up about 10% of a typical school's NIL budget for all its athletes. Q: Are there any rules or is it a free-for-all? A: The defendant conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and Pac-12) are creating an enforcement arm that is essentially taking over for the NCAA, which used to police recruiting violations and the like. Among this new entity's biggest functions is to analyze third-party deals worth $600 or more to make sure they are paying players an appropriate 'market value' for the services being provided. The so-called College Sports Commission promises to be quicker and more efficient than the NCAA. Schools are being asked to sign a contract saying they will abide by the rules of this new structure, even if it means going against laws passed in their individual states. Q: What about players who played before NIL was allowed? A: A key component of the settlement is the $2.7 billion in back pay going to athletes who competed between 2016-24 and were either fully or partially shut out from those payments under previous NCAA rules. That money will come from the NCAA and its conferences (but really from the schools, who will receive lower-than-normal payouts from things like March Madness). Q: Who will get most of the money? A: Since football and men's basketball are the primary revenue drivers at most schools, and that money helps fund all the other sports, it stands to reason that the football and basketball players will get most of the money. But that is one of the most difficult calculations for the schools to make. There could be Title IX equity concerns as well. Q: What about all the swimmers, gymnasts and other Olympic sports athletes? A: The settlement calls for roster limits that will reduce the number of players on all teams while making all of those players – not just a portion – eligible for full scholarships. This figures to have an outsize impact on Olympic-sport athletes, whose scholarships cost as much as that of a football player but whose sports don't produce revenue. There are concerns that the pipeline of college talent for Team USA will take a hit. Q: So, once this is finished, all of college sports' problems are solved, right? A: The new enforcement arm seems ripe for litigation. There are also the issues of collective bargaining and whether athletes should flat-out be considered employees, a notion the NCAA and schools are generally not interested in, despite Tennessee athletic director Danny White's suggestion that collective bargaining is a potential solution to a lot of headaches. NCAA President Charlie Baker has been pushing Congress for a limited antitrust exemption that would protect college sports from another series of lawsuits but so far nothing has emerged from Capitol Hill. ___
