In the name of media accountability, Florida bill would make it easier to revisit history

A proposed Florida law that purports to hold media outlets accountable would actually make facts 'airbrushable' from history, as Bobby Block, executive director of the First Amendment Foundation, told the Herald Editorial Board.
Think of the murder charges against Casey Anthony related to the death of her daughter and those against George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's death. Both cases were widely covered in the media before the accused were found not guilty.
If Senate Bill 752 is approved by the Florida Legislature, experts say, it would allow former defendants like Anthony and Zimmerman to require media outlets to take down news content about the charges against them because they weren't convicted — even if those stories accurately described the facts at the time of their arrest.
That's one bizarre consequence of SB 752 — and it goes even further than that.
The proposal would make it easier for subjects of news reporting to require that entire online articles be removed from a website within 10 days 'if any part of the online article is inaccurate' — no matter how small or inconsequential the error — Kara Gross, legislative director and senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, wrote in a statement.
That means taking down 'entire articles, even if only one sentence is disputed,' James Lake, a defamation lawyer, told the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 12. A correction or apology alone would not be enough to avoid punitive damages in court, Miami-based First Amendment lawyer Thomas Julin told the Board.
This would affect not only the 'liberal mainstream media' that Republicans dislike, but also the vast network of Florida's conservative news organizations, many of them small, that would be hard-pressed to afford the legal costs of defending themselves from defamation lawsuits. The religious communications group National Religious Broadcasters has warned the legislation would be weaponized against against Christian broadcasters.
In the end, if entire articles are taken down or the press ends up self-censoring to avoid legal issues, the public loses its ability to be informed.
The bill, filed by Sen. Corey Smith, R-Tallahassee, undermines what's known as 'fair reporting privilege.' Under the law, reporters have legal protections if they report on judicial and public records in a fair and accurate way. That includes statements made during court proceedings, public meetings or a police report when someone is arrested.
The bill states that if a newspaper, TV station or other outlet 'publishes a defamatory statement on the Internet with no knowledge of falsity of the statement,' they are required to take down that statement if they 'receive notice that such statement has been found in a judicial proceeding to be false' — a judicial proceeding could be interpreted to include an acquittal from criminal charges — 'or receives notice of facts that would cause a reasonable person to conclude that such statement was false.' If the news outlet fails to do so, they lose their fair reporting privilege.
SB 752, and its House companion, have been sold as a remedy for people whose reputations were ruined because of news stories about crimes they were accused of, even when those charges were later dropped or the defendants were found not guilty. Certainly, being accused of a crime shouldn't ruin anyone's life, especially if they aren't convicted.
But the problem is how broad the legislation is, and how it revisits what the truth means.
When law enforcement charged Anthony in 2008 with murdering her daughter, for example, those were the facts reported in the media at the time. Her subsequent acquittal doesn't change those initial events.
'[The bill] would require you to go back and edit history,' Julin said.
Another problem is how the legislation addresses statements that 'a reasonable person' would find false. That standard is 'often a matter of perspective or opinion,' the National Religious Broadcasters wrote in a letter to Senate leadership, Fox News reported. These outlets would be at risk of facing lawsuits because they 'often take positions that are at odds with views of certain elites within society,' NRB general counsel Michael Farris wrote.
If lawmakers truly want to help people whose reputations have been harmed, then a bill that narrowly addresses that would make more sense. This legislation seems more geared toward a broad and dangerous goal of chilling speech.
Click here to send the letter.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

30 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Kidney doctor's shooting comes as questions emerge about dialysis centers

Dr. Andre Obua drove 18 hours from Miami to Terre Haute, Indiana. He pulled up to the home of a local kidney specialist and allegedly opened fire, striking the kidney doctor in the hand before being wrestled to the ground. The only thing more unexpected than the act of violence was the apparent motive. Accused in the shooting, which occurred one month after the brazen murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York City, was Obua, a highly educated medical resident with a promising career. But Obua had become fixated on one of the least-understood corners in the big business of medicine — kidney dialysis. In letters penned from prison, in phone interviews and on a website he created, Obua shared with CBS News his grievances, discussed the Luigi Mangione case in New York, and offered hints to the underpinnings of an alleged act that landed him in jail, where he is awaiting trial on attempted murder charges. He would not directly discuss the shooting and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors in Vigo County, Indiana, said they consider the crime abhorrent — and a source of continued pain for the physician who was shot. CBS News is not naming the victim at the request of prosecutors. Prosecutor Terry R. Modesitt said his office determined the victim "had never done anything to justify having violence brought against him." Modesitt voiced a broader concern about what he said he fears is a growing wave of disturbing vigilante violence that has no place in a civilized society. "These cases that we read about in the news or watch on TV about the news — there's no excuse for this," Modesitt said. "Go out and protest. Write your congressman… file a complaint with the attorney general's office in your state, things like that. But no, there's never any justification to go try to murder someone." Tom Mueller, the author of "How to Make a Killing: Blood, Death and Dollars in American Medicine," spent more than five years studying the dialysis industry. He says the incident conjures many of the same complex swirl of emotions that Americans expressed after the UnitedHealthcare shooting. There is a visceral disgust for violence used to make a statement, he said. And there is long-running dismay about the shortcomings of America's health care system, which may be costing lives. That includes, he said, a rise of for-profit dialysis clinics and their impact on quality of care for those confronting end-stage kidney disease. "Unless we can talk about systemic harm done by the medical profession, the insurance profession, against patients … we're not gonna get anywhere," Mueller said. Mueller may be uniquely positioned to weigh in on both the crime and the issue that may have been underlying it. For months before the shooting, he told CBS News that he and Obua had been corresponding by email about his book. In those emails, which he described to CBS News, he says Obua never gave any indication he was spiraling towards violence. Mueller only learned of the shooting later, during an interview with CBS News. "I nearly fell off my chair when I heard," Mueller said. "My sense is that [his] level of desperation just must have found an outlet in a violent act." Dialysis under scrutiny LaQuayia "LQ" Goldring, 28, has been a dialysis patient for the past ten years. Goldring lives near Louisville, Kentucky, where she spends up to four and a half hours a day hooked up to a home dialysis machine. It acts as her kidneys, taking the blood from her body, removing the waste, then cycling it back in. "Every day I wake up, I'm thanking God that my feet even hit the ground and that my eyes open and I can still breathe on my own," she said. Goldring is one of roughly 500,000 Americans dependent on dialysis to stay alive as they wait and hope for a kidney transplant, the only available remedy for those suffering from end-stage kidney disease. She receives the treatment at home, and says dialysis clinics left her with no control over her care, treating her like a "check." She, like Mueller, believes the industry has become too focused on profits. "This is emergency room care done in the mall," Mueller said. "People are not given the tailored treatment that they need." A review of federal data by CBS News found one-third of dialysis clinics failed to meet federal standards this year — nearly 2,500 of the roughly 7,600 clinics nationwide. The average score was 60 out of 100 possible points. Criticism of the industry has been disputed by the two largest for-profit companies in the dialysis industry, Fresenius and DaVita. Fresenius told CBS News in a statement that the company maintains an "unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve." DaVita said in a statement that its "dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment." A health care "duopoly" The two companies dominate the national landscape of clinics where kidney patients come to receive regular dialysis treatments — crucial to keeping them alive. Roughly 90% of patients get their treatment in the outpatient clinics. And together, the two for-profit companies own nearly 75% of all U.S. clinics — nearly 5,600 in total. The companies have become what Mueller calls "a duopoly" as the industry has consolidated over the past three decades. The share of independently owned dialysis facilities fell from 86% to 21% during that period. In over 2,500 cities around the U.S., a single company owns every clinic. That industry dominance has a cost, according to Ryan McDevitt, a Duke University economist who co-authored a study released this month looking at the toll of the scarce competition. "This is the most concentrated health care sector across the entire U.S.," McDevitt said. McDevitt argues that Medicare's limits on how much it reimburses clinics per patient have incentivized DaVita and Fresenius to focus on filling chairs to increase their profit margins. Both companies reject that characterization. Last year alone, DaVita delivered more than 29 million dialysis treatments, earning $391 in revenue per session. That includes providing home dialysis treatments, like Goldring receives through Fresenius. Together, Davita and Fresenius reported a total of $33.7 billion in revenue from all of their businesses. McDevitt said his research found that when independent clinics are acquired by DaVita or Fresenius, their transplant referrals drop by about 10%, their patient survival rates fall by 2%, hospitalizations increase by 5%, and infection rates go up by about 12%. While kidney specialists typically dictate the type of care they want for their patients, some doctors told CBS News they felt pressure from the companies running the dialysis clinics to move patients through faster. Dr. Leonard Stern, a nephrologist now at Columbia University, said even if he believed a patient needed five hours of dialysis treatment, there were times that DaVita would refuse. "We have a corporate model that provides the least amount of care for the most amount of profit for shareholders," Stern said. Stern served as medical director of an independent for-profit dialysis center until 2005, when it was sold to DaVita. After the acquisition, he said there were times the company instructed him to make more room for new patients. He said that sometimes meant more billing for DaVita, even if it resulted in unnecessary complications and return visits for his patients. Stern left the clinic in 2013. Dr. Jeffrey Gold, a kidney specialist in Royal Oak, Michigan, said the doctors feel pressure to "get the next patient in — and make sure everybody has a spot to dialyze." McDevitt described the one-size-fits-all approach as inconsistent with patient needs. "They call it bazooka dialysis, where they pump you through the station as quickly as possible," McDevitt said, comparing the turnover model to any other volume business. "They need to turn over stations multiple times a day to hit those profit numbers, to keep shareholders happy." Reports of deficiencies Most dialysis patients rely on the federal government to pay for the treatment. The costs add up to about $40 billion a year, according to the American Association of Kidney Patients. "It's actually one percent of the entire federal budget, which is a staggering statistic," McDevitt said. Despite the expenditures — about $100,000 per patient, according to McDevitt — the U.S. has among the highest death rates for patients on dialysis among developed nations. For years, health surveyors from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have conducted routine monitoring of dialysis clinics to assess their performance. Since 2013, those officials have cited U.S. dialysis centers for more than 115,000 deficiencies, including poor hand hygiene, unsanitary conditions while handling IV medications, and inadequate training. CMS assigns every facility a "Total Performance Score," evaluating them annually on measures like patient safety, infection control and hospitalization rates. If the score is below CMS standards, the clinic is hit with a financial penalty. A CBS News review of federal data found more than 40% of the clinics run by the nation's two largest dialysis providers — DaVita and Fresenius — failed to meet those same standards this year. That's nearly 1,600 clinics. In separate statements to CBS News, both companies highlighted their performance, saying the data reflects a track record of "exemplary care." Fresenius noted that more than 65% of its dialysis centers received three stars or higher on Medicare's five-star scale — a rate the company said is higher than the national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. The company also said its employees "take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients." DaVita said in a statement to CBS News that problems in clinics were "rare and isolated" and represent "exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide." "We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it," DaVita said in its statement. "To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk." Legal settlements top $1 billion The dialysis industry has faced legal scrutiny over the past decade from patients, their surviving relatives, and from state and federal agencies. One ongoing federal case against Fresenius accuses the firm of trying to fraudulently obtain hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds by performing unnecessary procedures — an allegation the company denies. The two companies have settled at least 25 lawsuits. And CBS News has found that since 2015, Fresenius and DaVita paid out at least $1.13 billion in legal settlements. "I have not seen any improvement in care following these settlements," McDevitt said. A spiral towards violence Frustration over the lack of reform in the industry has been simmering for years, Mueller told CBS News. Which is why Mueller said he was not unnerved as he exchanged emails with a Miami-based medical resident who had taken an interest in dialysis — and specifically, the use of a specific medication he thought could be harming patients. "The kinds of emails he sent were totally rational, very thoughtful, extremely data-driven," Mueller said, calling Andre Obua "the last person in the world I would think to commit a violent act." Over dozens of pages, the letters Obua sent to CBS News from jail describe how he grew up in a low-income household in Ann Arbor, Michigan — a background that "shaped my world views and motivates me to advocate for the less fortunate," he wrote. He says he first heard during an internal medical rotation about the use of a medication being prescribed to kidney patients to speed up the dialysis process, which he speculated could be endangering their health. It appears from his writing that this concern went from being an interest to being an obsession. At one point, he described seeking out a lawyer to file a whistleblower lawsuit, but was ultimately persuaded he could not succeed in court. CBS News sought to verify his claims, but no kidney expert interviewed believed that the medication in question harmed patients. Nevertheless, Obua unspooled mountains of his research, theories and accusations on a public website. A source familiar with the case told CBS News Obua had drawn up a list of kidney doctors to target. Near the top was the victim of his attack in Indiana. In January, for reasons Obua would not directly address in his letters and conversations with CBS News, the 29-year-old said he loaded his car with firearms and a bag of Monopoly money — which he noted was similar to the one left behind by alleged UnitedHealthcare shooter Luigi Mangione — and headed north towards Indiana. Police reports say Obua fired at a Terre Haute kidney specialist without warning, striking the doctor in the hand. The two wrestled in the tranquil suburban driveway until police arrived and placed Obua under arrest. Mueller shakes his head when thinking about the bright future Obua seemingly abandoned that winter evening. "It says we're living in extreme times," he said. "And it's a tragic, tragic event." Modesitt, the prosecutor, said he has no sympathy for the young medical resident who's now facing attempted murder charges. "If you've got a problem in any way with the system or anything else, we have attorney generals, we have secretary of states, different entities that you can file a complaint with," Modesitt said. "But it's never justified to take the law in your own hands." Obua is scheduled to go on trial in August. Full statement of DaVita: Our dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment. We understand that in any healthcare setting, rare and isolated incidents may occur. However, these are diligently addressed as exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide. We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it. To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk. Full statement of Fresenius Medical Care: Providing high-quality care is our standard, and nothing gets in the way of our patients being our North Star. By any objective measure, our ability to hire qualified staff, deliver outstanding – best-in-class – patient care, and innovate for the betterment of people living with kidney disease far outpaces the industry. This is evidenced by the fact that the most recently available CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) 5-Star quality data, which concluded that more than 65% of all Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) dialysis centers received 3 stars or higher – higher than the combined national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. Our approximately 70,000 employees and care teams, working across more than 2,600 dialysis centers, and delivering over 31 million treatments annually in the U.S. take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients. And our ability to introduce revolutionary advancements and innovation in kidney care, including the upcoming introduction of the 5008X™ CAREsystem in the U.S. that will deliver high-volume hemodiafiltration starting later in 2025, demonstrates our unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve. Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Some key Democratic congressional leaders left out of Trump's Iran attack plans Extended interview: LQ Goldring on her quest for a kidney donor

Miami Herald

42 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow

A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

'Baby steps': Leader Thune details his work to corral Republicans behind Trump's legislative vision

Print Close By Alex Miller Published June 22, 2025 FIRST ON FOX: Senate Majority Leader John Thune is weathering headwinds in his own conference over outstanding concerns in President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" that threaten to derail the legislation, but he's taking it in stride and standing firm that the megabill will make it to the president's desk by July 4. "We have to hit it, and you know whether that means it's the end of next week, or whether we roll into that Fourth of July week," the South Dakota Republican told Fox News Digital during an interview from his leadership suite. "But if we have to go into that week, we will," he continued. "I think it's that important. And you know what I've seen around here, at least in the past, my experience, if there's no deadline, things tend to drag on endlessly." TOP TRUMP ALLY PREDICTS SENATE WILL BLOW PAST 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' DEADLINE Senate Republicans have been working on their version of Trump's mammoth bill, which includes priorities to make his 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, sweeping changes to healthcare, Biden-era energy credits and deep spending cuts, among others, since the beginning of June. Now that each portion of the bill has been released, Thune is eyeing having the bill on the floor by the middle of next week. But, he still has to wrangle disparate factions within the Senate GOP to get on board with the bill. "It is a work in progress," Thune said. "It's, you know, sometimes it's kind of incremental baby steps." A cohort of fiscal hawks, led by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., are unhappy with the level of spending cuts in the bill. Some Senate Republicans want to achieve at least $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, but Johnson has remained firm in his belief that the bill should go deeper and return to pre-COVID-19 pandemic spending levels. Others, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are upset with tweaks to Medicaid, and the impact those changes could have on rural hospitals and working people on the healthcare program's benefit rolls. 'IT JUST BAFFLES ME': SENATE REPUBLICANS SOUND ALARM OVER MEDICAID CHANGES, SPENDING IN TRUMP MEGABILL Thune has to strike a precarious balancing act to sate the concerns of his conference, given that he can only afford to lose three votes. It's a reality he acknowledged and described as trying to find "the sweet spot" where he can advance the bill back to the House. He's been meeting with the factions individually, communicating with the White House and working to "make sure everybody's rolling in the same direction." "Everybody has different views about how to do that, but in the end, it's cobbling together the necessary 51 votes, so we're working with anybody who is offering feedback," he said. Collins and others are working on the side to create a provider relief fund that could offer a salve to the lingering issues about the crackdown on the Medicaid provider rate tax in the bill. The Senate Finance Committee went further than the House's freeze of the provider tax rate, or the amount that state Medicaid programs pay to healthcare providers on behalf of Medicaid beneficiaries, for non-Affordable Care Act expansion states, and included a provision that lowers the rate in expansion states annually until it hits 3.5%. "We're going to do everything we can to make sure that, for example, rural hospitals have some additional assistance to sort of smooth that transition," Thune said. BLUE STATE REPUBLICANS THREATEN REVOLT AGAINST TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' IF SENATE CHANGES KEY TAX RULE Thune, who is a member of the Finance panel, noted that "we all agree that the provider tax has been gamed" and "abused" by blue states like New York and California, and argued that the changes were done to help "right the ship" in the program. "I think that's why the sort of off-ramp, soft-landing approach [from] the Finance committee makes sense, but these are substantial changes," he said. "But on the other hand, if we don't start doing some things to reform and strengthen these programs, these programs aren't going to be around forever, because we're not going to be able to afford them." The Senate's product won't be the end of the reconciliation process, however. The changes in the bill will have to be green-lit by the House, and one change in particular to the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap already has a cohort of blue state House Republicans furious and threatening to kill the bill. The Senate's bill, for now, left the cap unchanged at $10,000 from the policy ushered in by Trump's first-term tax cuts, a figure that Senate Republicans view as a placeholder while negotiations continue. Indeed, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., is working with members of the SALT caucus in the House to find a compromise on the cap. But the appetite to keep the House-passed $40,000 cap isn't strong in the Senate. "The passion in the Senate is as strong as it is in the House against changing the current policy and law in a way that… favors high-tax states to the detriment and disadvantage of low tax states," he said. "And so it's the emotion that you see in the House side on that particular issue is matched in the Senate in a different direction." Meanwhile, as negotiations continue behind the scenes on ways to address issues among Senate Republicans, the Senate Parliamentarian is currently chunking through each section of the greater "big, beautiful bill." The parliamentarian's role is to determine whether policies within each section of the bill comport with the Byrd Rule, which is the arcane set of parameters that govern the budget reconciliation process. Thune has made clear that he would not overrule that parliamentarian on Trump's megabill, and re-upped that position once more. The reconciliation process gives either party in power the opportunity to pass legislation on party lines and skirt the Senate filibuster, but it has to adhere to the Byrd Rule's requirements that policy deals with spending and revenue. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP However, he countered that Senate Republicans planned to take a page from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., when Democrats rammed former President Joe Biden's agenda through Congress. "The Democrats with the [Inflation Reduction Act] and [American Rescue Plan Act], for that matter, they dramatically expanded the scope of reconciliation and what's eligible for consideration," he said. "So, we've used that template, and we're pushing as hard as we can to make sure that it allows us to accomplish our agenda, or at least as much of our agenda as possible, and fit within the parameters of what's allowed," he continued. Print Close URL