Latest news with #ElizabethMacDonough
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
The senate referee who could decide the fate of Trump's mega-bill
A rarely-talked-about, unelected bureaucrat within the Senate may have the power to tank President Donald Trump 's big beautiful bill. The Senate Parliamentarian, a position held by Elizabeth MacDonough since 2012, is about to weigh in on whether the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs afoul of the upper chamber's rules. The parliamentarian is more often than not an afterthought, typically because their role is to be the Senate's hall monitor, essentially making sure mundane processes on the floor are adhered to. However, the parliamentarian is thrust into the spotlight every time senators try to pass a bill through budget reconciliation, a process that allows the Senate to pass items with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Since Trump's big beautiful bill is going through reconciliation, MacDonough has the power to veto certain provisions that she feels aren't related to the budget or are solely policy objectives. The appeal of the reconciliation process is obvious. Since Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate, a united GOP can essentially pass the bill without input from a single Democratic senator. The catch is, MacDonough can pick and choose which line items in the bill need to be slashed with red ink. She will be responsible for interpreting whether the Big Beautiful Bill complies with something called the Byrd Rule, which has been around since 1985. The Byrd Rule is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a key figure in instituting the guardrails around reconciliation packages like the one Trump is trying to ram through. The most important facet of the Byrd Rule states that reconciliation bills cannot have provisions in them that don't have an effect on the budget. Put simply, if a provision doesn't meaningfully increase or decrease federal spending, it can be considered extraneous and be tossed out of the bill. The Byrd Rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from overhauling Social Security or increasing the deficit for a fiscal year not included in the bill's purview. The test to see whether a bill complies with the rule has been referred to as the 'Byrd Bath.' MacDonough last used the 'Byrd Bath' to water down President Joe Biden's Build Back Better package in 2022. Specifically, she struck down three separate attempts by the Democrats to provide a pathway to citizenship for eight million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Now, she's in the position to take a major bite out of Trump's agenda, though its not entirely clear what she might take aim at. Many have speculated MacDonough will rule against a provision buried deep within the bill that will upend the US judicial system. Section 70302 of the bill would severely limit the power of federal courts to enforce injunctions or hold government officials in contempt. This comes as federal judges have slapped the second Trump administration with an unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days , most of which curtailed the government's ability to deport illegal migrants. During a townhall on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a constituent that she believed this provision has no chance of getting through the Senate. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills,' Ernst said. The big beautiful bill also contains a section that prohibits Medicaid funds from going to any clinic that provides abortions. Back in 2017, the parliamentarian found that a similar provision in a reconciliation bill violated the Byrd Rule, which could mean she'll strike it down again this time. The current bill's regulations on AI could also be cast aside in the impending Byrd Bath. There is precedent for the Senate simply ignoring the parliamentarian. The declarations of MacDonough and all the other parliamentarians before her have been non-binding and lacking in actual enforcement power. Just two weeks ago, the Senate voted 51-44 to repeal a federal waiver that allowed California to institute an electric vehicle mandate, completely disregarding the parliamentarian's guidance on the issue. Democrats condemned the move by Republicans, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying, 'Republicans, I believe, I am certain, will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight.' Going back a bit further, there is also precedent of Senate leaders getting rid of the parliamentarian over disagreements on the Byrd Rule. On May 7, 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove, because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill. Exactly one month later, with a new parliamentarian in place, Bush was able to sign his first landmark tax cut into law. This scenario appears unlikely to repeat, since Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he isn't even willing to overrule the parliamentarian, let alone fire her. 'We're not going there,' Thune told reporters on Monday.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
The powerful politician no one's heard of who can torpedo Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill'
A rarely-talked-about, unelected bureaucrat within the Senate may have the power to tank President Donald Trump 's big beautiful bill. The Senate Parliamentarian, a position held by Elizabeth MacDonough since 2012, is about to weigh in on whether the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act runs afoul of the upper chamber's rules. The parliamentarian is more often than not an afterthought, typically because their role is to be the Senate's hall monitor, essentially making sure mundane processes on the floor are adhered to. However, the parliamentarian is thrust into the spotlight every time senators try to pass a bill through budget reconciliation, a process that allows the Senate to pass items with a simple majority instead of the usual 60 votes needed to overcome the filibuster. Since Trump's big beautiful bill is going through reconciliation, MacDonough has the power to veto certain provisions that she feels aren't related to the budget or are solely policy objectives. The appeal of the reconciliation process is obvious. Since Republicans control 53 seats in the Senate, a united GOP can essentially pass the bill without input from a single Democratic senator. The catch is, MacDonough can pick and choose which line items in the bill need to be slashed with red ink. She will be responsible for interpreting whether the Big Beautiful Bill complies with something called the Byrd Rule, which has been around since 1985. If MacDonough decides to exercise her veto power, key provisions of President Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill could be deleted The Byrd Rule is named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a key figure in instituting the guardrails around reconciliation packages like the one Trump is trying to ram through. The most important facet of the Byrd Rule states that reconciliation bills cannot have provisions in them that don't have an effect on the budget. Put simply, if a provision doesn't meaningfully increase or decrease federal spending, it can be considered extraneous and be tossed out of the bill. The Byrd Rule also prohibits reconciliation bills from overhauling Social Security or increasing the deficit for a fiscal year not included in the bill's purview. The test to see whether a bill complies with the rule has been referred to as the 'Byrd Bath.' MacDonough last used the 'Byrd Bath' to water down President Joe Biden's Build Back Better package in 2022. Specifically, she struck down three separate attempts by the Democrats to provide a pathway to citizenship for eight million immigrants living in the United States illegally. Now, she's in the position to take a major bite out of Trump's agenda, though its not entirely clear what she might take aim at. Many have speculated MacDonough will rule against a provision buried deep within the bill that will upend the US judicial system. Section 70302 of the bill would severely limit the power of federal courts to enforce injunctions or hold government officials in contempt. This comes as federal judges have slapped the second Trump administration with an unprecedented 25 nationwide injunctions in its first 100 days, most of which curtailed the government's ability to deport illegal migrants. During a townhall on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a constituent that she believed this provision has no chance of getting through the Senate. 'I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills,' Ernst said. The big beautiful bill also contains a section that prohibits Medicaid funds from going to any clinic that provides abortions. Back in 2017, the parliamentarian found that a similar provision in a reconciliation bill violated the Byrd Rule, which could mean she'll strike it down again this time. The current bill's regulations on AI could also be cast aside in the impending Byrd Bath. There is precedent for firing the parliamentarian. In May 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. (left), fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove (right), because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill There is precedent for the Senate simply ignoring the parliamentarian. The declarations of MacDonough and all the other parliamentarians before her have been non-binding and lacking in actual enforcement power. Just two weeks ago, the Senate voted 51-44 to repeal a federal waiver that allowed California to institute an electric vehicle mandate, completely disregarding the parliamentarian's guidance on the issue. Democrats condemned the move by Republicans, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying, 'Republicans, I believe, I am certain, will come to regret the ill-considered step they take tonight.' Going back a bit further, there is also precedent of Senate leaders getting rid of the parliamentarian over disagreements on the Byrd Rule. On May 7, 2001, then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fired the parliamentarian at the time, Robert Dove, because he was getting in the way of President George W. Bush's budget bill. Exactly one month later, with a new parliamentarian in place, Bush was able to sign his first landmark tax cut into law. This scenario appears unlikely to repeat, since Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that he isn't even willing to overrule the parliamentarian, let alone fire her. 'We're not going there,' Thune told reporters on Monday.
4 days ago
- Business
Senate parliamentarian will have final say on some provisions in Trump's funding bill
No one elected her and you don't hear much about her, but she's about to be one of the most important people on Capitol Hill. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough can usually be seen perched atop the Senate dais, helping to make sure the Senate floor runs according to the rules. But she's about to step into the role as arbiter of the Senate's reconciliation package, where she'll have the final say in whether a number of key provisions in the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act are in keeping with the Senate's rules. Senate Republicans want to make changes to the bill the House passed by a single vote and sent to them. But Senate rules could force a number of changes they find less desirable, too. A veto of any provision by MacDonough could mean major parts of the package are thrown to the wayside, so her rulings will be watched closely by Democrats and Republicans alike in the coming weeks. MacDonough is responsible for making calls on whether the provisions in the bill are in keeping with the Byrd Rule, named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, who helped institute the rules governing budget reconciliation packages like President Donald Trump's "one big, beautiful bill." MacDonough has been parliamentarian since 2012 after serving as senior assistant parliamentarian for 10 years. She is the first woman to fill the job since it was created in 1935. She was called to make several rulings when Democrats used reconciliation to get then-President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022 as well as the COVID relief package the year before. She also advised Chief Justice John Roberts during Trump's impeachment trials. The Byrd Rule In order for the Senate to use the reconciliation process, which allows it to pass budget packages like this with a simple majority of votes instead of the usual 60 necessary to overcome the Senate's filibuster, everything in the bill must follow the Byrd Rule. In the Senate, the process of the Budget Committee reviewing the bill and the parliamentarian to make sure it's up to snuff is sometimes referred to cheekily as the "Byrd Bath." So what are the rules? The Byrd Rule bars the Senate from including any "extraneous provisions" in budget bills. Anything in the bill, according to the rule, should be necessary to implement the underlying budget resolution that Congress already passed. Simply stated: If a policy provision doesn't have an effect on the budget, it can't be included. Even budget changes that are "merely incidental" to policy provisions are considered out of order. Now, things are always a bit more complicated in the Senate. The Byrd rule also prohibits Congress from touching Social Security in a reconciliation bill, from increasing the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the period included in the bill, and more. But its basic form is this: everything in the bill must be related to the budget. It may seem in the weeds, but this review process can have meaningful impacts on reconciliation bills. In the Democrat-backed "Build Back Better" package in 2022, for example, the parliamentarian struck a number of provisions Democrats wanted focused on immigration reform. Democrats ended up having to give up those provisions to pass their package under then-President Joe Biden. Big policy agenda items that are critical to some Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could in theory be slashed out by the parliamentarian, so the process matters. What does it mean for Trump's megabill? There are a number of provisions facing a tenuous path in the Senate because of the Byrd Rule. Democrats are already vowing to fight policies they say are out of order. "In the Senate, our committees have been working overtime to prepare for the Byrd Bath, targeting the litany of policies included in the Republican plan that are in clear violation of the reconciliation rules and in some cases, an assault on our very democracy," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote in a letter to his colleagues Sunday night. We'll ultimately have to wait for MacDonough to rule, but if it sounds like policy and not budget, it might be at risk. Here are a few provisions in the House-passed bill that appear to be potentially at risk of being struck out by the parliamentarian. This is not an exhaustive list and doesn't account for things that Senate Republicans might want to change or remove from the bill: AI regulations: The House bill includes language that prohibits state and local governments from enforcing "any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems" over a 10-year period. Federal court provisions: The bill creates a new requirement that could restrict how parties suing the federal government get relief in court. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, as recently as Friday suggested at a town hall, when pressed by a constituent about the provision, that it likely wouldn't pass muster in the Byrd Bath. "I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues, so I just don't see that I don't see that getting into the Senate bills," Ernst said then. Planned Parenthood funding ban: The House bill includes a provision that would ban Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood if it provides abortion services. The parliamentarian stripped a similar provision from a 2017 reconciliation package. It stands to reason she could rule similarly this go-round.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans Flirt With Nuking the Filibuster
It's a tale as old as time—or, rather, roughly as old as a seventh grader: The party controlling the Senate takes action to weaken the filibuster, and the minority party warns of a tyrannical majoritarian upper chamber that will undermine its perhaps outdated reputation as the 'cooling saucer' of Congress. The latest salvo in this long-running conflict occurred on Wednesday, when Senate Republicans pressed forward with a simple-majority vote to overturn California's electric vehicle mandate, despite an assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, or GAO, that it should be subject to the 60-vote filibuster threshold. Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who advises the upper chamber on proper procedure, has sided with the GAO on this issue, and Democrats warn that moving forward would set a dangerous precedent in weakening the filibuster. 'No, this isn't the same as killing the filibuster. This actually goes way, way beyond that. First, they are doing more than going nuclear on the parliamentarian. They are going nuclear on the Congressional Review Act itself,' argued Senator Alex Padilla of California in a speech ahead of the vote. Let's rewind a bit—about 30 years ago, to be precise. Since 1996, the Congressional Review Act, or CRA, has allowed Congress to overturn executive agency rules under expedited procedures, meaning that it is not subject to the filibuster, but instead can be vacated with a simple majority threshold. OK, now fast-forward: In 2024, the Biden administration granted California a waiver to implement an electric vehicle mandate. The GAO assessed that this waiver did not count as an executive agency rule, meaning that it could not be subject to the CRA. In February, the Trump administration sent the rule to Congress, saying that it was a rule and subject to the CRA. Although the GAO reiterated that the waivers did not count as a rule, Senate Republicans pressed forward with a plan to use the CRA to vacate the mandate anyway. In an effort to avoid claims that Republicans were actively ignoring the parliamentarian's advice, Senate Majority John Thune set up a series of complex points of order in the service of overcoming her ruling that agency waivers are not rules that can be overturned by the CRA. 'What I didn't want to do was to vote to overturn the parliamentarian, and with help from a lot of experts the leader came up with an approach that avoids that outcome,' GOP Senator Susan Collins told reporters ahead of the vote. Thune also insisted that the move 'is not about destroying Senate procedure or any other hysterical claim the Democrats are making.' Democrats, however, beg to differ. 'On this vote, the Republicans will be breaking their commitment and will be going nuclear, and however they try to disguise their actions, this is nuclear, no ands, ifs or buts,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. 'They will not like it the next time they are in the minority.' Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who wrote Exceptions to the Rule: The Politics of Filibuster Limitations in the U.S. Senate, said that while Republicans' actions amount to simply adding yet another new exception to a rule, it is another 'step in the Senate's slow march to simple majority rule.' 'Every time the Senate chips away at the filibuster, every time it expands a set of things that it can do with a simple majority threshold, we should take note of that,' said Reynolds. The process of slowly undermining the 60-vote threshold for advancing most legislation in the Senate has been underway since Democrats used the 'nuclear option' to eliminate the filibuster for certain judicial nominations in 2013, and both parties have further undermined the precedent in the name of advancing their respective goals. Matthew Glassman, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, noted that given the specificity of the CRA, there is a 'very narrow set of times this will come into play,' but added that 'this is a demarcation line.' 'I wouldn't call this the crumbling of the dam on the filibuster on normal legislation, but it's one more exception to the rule,' Glassman said. The debate over the extent of the CRA comes as Republicans attempt to pass their massive 'big, beautiful bill' that would extend tax breaks and slash billions in federal spending—particularly targeting benefits for low-income Americans—while adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. The measure is being considered through a process known as a budget reconciliation—another method of avoiding the filibuster. GOP senators are mulling ignoring the advice of the parliamentarian on what is permitted to be included in the bill under reconciliation rules. 'We are having this conversation about what the Senate can do with a simple majority threshold, how it treats the advice of the parliamentarian in practice, if not in literal implementation, in the midst of a broader conversation about whether they're going to listen to the parliamentarian in the reconciliation context,' Reynolds said. 'We can't isolate that from this broader debate over, are they going to keep deferring to the parliamentarian?' If Senate Republicans do decide to ignore the advice of MacDonough when approving the reconciliation bill, it would just be yet another line in the sand that senators are willing to cross in carving out greater exceptions to allow the passage of their priorities. Eventually, said Glassman, the will of the majority will win out over a desire to keep Senate precedent. 'I think the filibuster is on borrowed time. I think a decade from now it'll be gone,' said Glassman. 'It takes the right orientation of politics to get you to that point, but we're closing in on it. And things like this just open up people's eyes that the procedures are relatively simple, and it's not hard to go down there and do it.'
San Francisco Chronicle
22-05-2025
- Automotive
- San Francisco Chronicle
The fate of California's emissions standards is now in the Senate's hands
WASHINGTON — Congress might plow ahead with its push to repeal California's nation-leading vehicle emissions standards, even as the legality of the effort remains unclear. The House passed resolutions this week to rescind federal waivers that allow California to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than the rest of the country, including requiring the sale of most gas-powered vehicles be phased out by 2035 as well as mandating reductions in nitrogen oxide and other emissions for trucks. The Senate is now considering whether to take up the legislation. California is the only state that can seek permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to establish emissions policies stricter than federal law, which means it often has the nation's most aggressive environmental policies. Other states can only pass similar policies once the federal government has approved California's, and automakers often build their vehicles to California's standards. Congress is attempting to use a tool called the Congressional Review Act, which allows lawmakers to rescind federal agency actions with a majority vote — a much faster path than the administrative process, which can take a year or longer. But Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough — an unelected, nonpartisan rules arbiter — determined April 4 that California's waivers weren't subject to the CRA. The Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that audits Congress, made a similar determination on the basis that the waivers are individual administration actions, not agency rules. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, said Republicans are 'exploring our options' about how they could vote to roll back the waivers. 'Because it's somewhat unprecedented, I think we're looking at all the implications around it to see what options are available,' he told Politico Monday. 'The Congressional Review Act was designed to provide a mechanism for congressional oversight of new rules by federal agencies — not for partisan attacks on duly-adopted state laws. Not only would the misuse of the CRA undermine the integrity of our democratic process, but it would also be unlawful,' Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We urge the U.S. Senate to abide by the determinations of the GAO and Senate Parliamentarian that these CRA resolutions should not proceed.' Gov. Gavin Newsom said House Republicans are determined to 'make California smoggy again.' Project 2025, the far-right blueprint for a second Trump presidency that was co-written by Russell Vought, who is now President Donald Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, called for revoking the waivers. House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told the Chronicle Wednesday he hadn't discussed the bills with the Senate. Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Rocklin, said he hopes the Senate will take up the resolutions. 'It's an important issue and, clearly, it's a national policy,' he said. 'That's exactly what the CRA was designed for.' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Senate Environment Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia each told Axios Thursday that they expect the Senate to take up the House-passed bills. 'We're trying to figure out the best strategy there,' Capito, who introduced the Senate companion resolutions and is also a member of Republican leadership, told Axios. Capito expects the Senate to take them up before June 1. Congress can rescind recently published federal regulations using the Congressional Review Act, but only has a short window to do so. The window to rescind the rules will likely close in early June. Capito and Sen. John Cornyn of Texas each characterized the possibility of ignoring the parliamentarian's ruling as an exception. Republicans are already planning an end-run around MacDonough, however, to extend President Donald Trump's 2017 tax credits without the $4.6 trillion cost and securing 60 votes to pass it. Four Senate Republicans — including Susan Collins of Maine, Cornyn, John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — reportedly raised concerns about sidestepping MacDonough in the financial tally to extend those tax credits. Cornyn told reporters that the Senate wouldn't overrule the parliamentarian with regard to the tax credit package and that Republicans wouldn't have the votes to do so. The Senate has overruled the parliamentarian only on rare occasions, including to remove the filibuster on presidential nominations in 2013 and Supreme Court nominations in 2017, or when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller overruled the parliamentarian in 1975. Thune could also fire MacDonough, as Republicans did in 2001 when then-Parliamentarian Robert Dove ruled against them in a way that made it difficult to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts. California's waivers aren't opposed on a strictly partisan basis, however. Several House Democrats, including two Californians, crossed the aisle to support revoking the waivers. Thirty-five Democrats, including Reps. Lou Correa of Santa Ana (Orange County) and George Whitesides of Santa Clarita (Los Angeles County), supported revoking the waiver that allows California to ban the sale of new gas vehicles by 2035. A spokesperson for Whitesides declined to comment. 'As a lawmaker, my primary job is to listen to my neighbors and respect their choices to do what is best for their families and their circumstances. That means protecting consumers' rights to drive whatever vehicle makes sense for them and their pocketbooks,' Correa said in a statement to the Chronicle. About a dozen Democrats, none of whom represent California, supported revoking the other two waivers regulating truck emissions standards. Rescinding the waivers was a serious concern to Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Antioch, who told the Chronicle in December that he was worried the incoming administration would attempt to revoke them. 'There is a financial interest in keeping California at the forefront of new energy. And because of the way the Clean Air Act is written, no other state can do that without us showing leadership,' he said.
