Latest news with #ByrdRule
The Hill
an hour ago
- Business
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian knocks pieces out of Trump's megabill
Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has ruled that several key pieces of the massive bill to implement President Trump's agenda run afoul of the Byrd Rule and must be taken out of the package to allow it to pass with a simple majority vote on a special procedural fast-track. The parliamentarian ruled against several provisions under the jurisdictions of the Senate Banking, Environment and Public Works and Armed Services Committees. These included a provision that would have placed a funding cap on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which would have cut $6.4 billion from the agency by reducing its maximum funding to zero percent of the Federal Reserve's operating expenses. The creation of the CFPB was one of the central reforms of the Dodd-Frank Act that Democrats passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. She also ruled against language cutting $1.4 billion in costs by reducing the pay of Federal Reserve staff, cutting $293 million by reducing the Office of Financial Research funding and cutting $771 million by eliminating the Public Company Accounting Oversight board. Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, touted the parliamentary rulings. 'The Senate Parliamentarian advised that certain provisions in the Republicans' One Big, Beautiful Betrayal will be subject to the Byrd Rule – ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill to ensure it complies with the rules of reconciliation,' Merkley said. 'As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their families lose and billionaires win agenda, there are rules that must be followed and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,' he added. Senate Republicans will need to remove the provisions from the bill or otherwise would have to muster 60 voters to overcome a point of order against the bill. Senate Republicans hold a 53-47 seat majority. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) could opt to override the parliamentarian's ruling with a simple majority vote on the floor establishing a new Senate precedent, but he has indicated he does not plan to do that. The parliamentarian ruled that several sections of the bill under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee also violated the Byrd Rule. She ruled against the repeal of funding authorizations in the Inflation Reduction Act and the repeal of the Environmental Protection Agency's multipollutant emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and later. She also ruled against a provision under the Armed Services panel's jurisdiction that would reduce appropriations to the Department of Defense if spending plans are not submitted on time.
New York Post
2 days ago
- Health
- New York Post
How Trump's ‘big, beautiful' bill targets transgender medical procedures nationally
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on transgender medical procedures for minors — a controversial practice that could be outlawed nationally if President Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill clears the Senate intact. The House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a provision barring the use of taxpayer money to fund so-called 'gender-affirming care,' for both children and adults. The provision, championed by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), would ban Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPs) and Affordable Care Act (ACA) funds from being spent on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and irreversible surgeries, such as double masectomies and genital reconstruction. The so-called 'Crenshaw Amendment' — a last-minute addition to the massive piece of legislation — specifically amends the Social Security Act, halting federal payments for what the provision deems as medically unnecessary procedures. 3 Crenshaw's provision will save taxpayers $2.5 billions over the next 10 years, according to his office. REUTERS The provision will have to survive the Senate's strict rules governing the reconciliation process, specifically the Byrd Rule, to make it into the upper chamber's version of the legislation. The Byrd Rule prevents the inclusion of measures deemed 'extraneous' to the budget process. For instance, provisions that don't directly affect spending or revenue. The Byrd Rule is interpreted and enforced by the Senate parliamentarian. Crenshaw's office notes that taxpayers will save 'about $2.5 billion over 10 years' if the provision becomes law. 'That's the estimated savings from blocking federal funding — via Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA — for gender transition procedures,' the congressman's office states. 'With transition costs running up to $75,000 per patient, the numbers add up fast. This amendment cuts it off—saving money and saving lives.' Last month, Crenshaw vowed that his provision 'will become law,' arguing that it is 'long overdue.' 'Gender transition procedures are the lobotomy of our generation,' he said in a statement. 'So-called 'gender-affirming care' isn't healthcare — it's fringe science with no proven benefit and massive risks.' 3 The transgender surgery ban would codify and expand on President Trump's executive actions preventing federal agencies from using tax dollars to promote or fund gender transitions. AP 3 The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's transgender surgery ban on Wednesday in a 6-3 ruling. REUTERS In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found that Tennessee's ban on transgender puberty blockers and hormone therapy treatments for minors does not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. More than half of US states have similar laws on the books. 'Today was not just a win for basic biology and common sense, but for human decency, sound medicine, and the dignity and safety of children everywhere,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) said of the high court's ruling. 'As a doctor for over 25 years, I understand the gravity of these harmful so-called treatments radical activists have been pushing on children. They leave permanent scarring, sterilization, and other horrible side effects,' he added. 'Make no mistake, there's more work to do, and I remain committed to eliminating taxpayer-funded transgender procedures on both minors and adults.' Marshall's No Subsidies for Gender Transition Procedures Act is the Senate's companion legislation to Crenshaw's measure in the House.
The Hill
2 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
The budget rule that killed the minimum wage hike could save climate policies
In the 2021 and 2022 Congress, Democrats had a narrow Senate majority but nonetheless achieved major accomplishments through a combination of bipartisan legislation and the use of the budget reconciliation process. As chief counsel for the Senate Environment Committee, I was personally involved in some of these efforts and had a front row seat for others. The approach brought major successes: the biggest investment in America's infrastructure ever, the most meaningful climate change bill ever passed by Congress and new policies that reinvigorated U.S. manufacturing. However, there were also some notable failures. For example, Democrats sought to increase the federal minimum wage in the budget reconciliation process. The budget implications of raising the minimum wage were estimated to be $54 billion. Despite that huge effect, whether the provision could be included in the budget package hinged on the application of the 'Byrd Rule,' which provides that budget bills cannot include provisions that have merely incidental budget effects compared to the provision's nonbudgetary effects. Democrats were crestfallen when the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian ruled that including the wage provision would not comply with the Byrd rule. Simply put, indirect budgetary effects, even large ones, are considered incidental to the major and direct policy effects of raising the minimum wage. The White House said at the time that President Biden 'respects the parliamentarian's decision and the Senate's process,' and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, 'reconciliation cannot be used as a vehicle to pass major legislative change — by either party — on a simple majority vote. This decision will, over time, reinforce the traditions of the Senate.' The conservative Heritage Foundation was certainly relieved, as it had warned that including the wage provision would be the 'equivalent of detonating the nuclear option on the legislative filibuster.' Democrats might have been disappointed then, but the rules of reconciliation should work in their favor this year, provided that the traditions of the Senate hold. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has proposed budget reconciliation language that would defund, repeal and rewrite the nation's energy, environment and climate policies. Under a fair application of the Byrd rule, many of the provisions would have to be stripped out. The budget director for former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) recently observed that this effort to repeal Congress's policy language in a budget measure is 'clearly unprecedented.' For starters, the proposed reconciliation bill would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's air pollution standards for cars and trucks. Although some have referred to these standards as an 'electric vehicle mandate,' they really just require cleaner vehicles, whether powered by gasoline or electricity. EPA's analysis suggests that the rule will likely spur automakers to manufacture and sell more EVs, which, in addition to reducing pollution, will also help create jobs and grow the economy. These EPA standards are projected to provide a stunning $1.9 trillion in health, climate and other benefits over the coming decades and will save hundreds of billions of dollars for consumers because electricity is cheaper than gasoline and EVs require so much less maintenance. Despite these benefits, proponents of repeal will argue that there are budget effects from removing the standards. They will point to projections that American families will pay more in federal gas taxes and receive less in incentives for EVs if automakers bring fewer EVs to market. But these kinds of indirect budget effects are analogous to the effects of the 2021 minimum wage proposal. The Senate parliamentarian should thus find that repealing pollution standards is not compliant with the Senate budget rules. Unfortunately, the emerging bill looks like it will have many provisions that don't belong in a budget bill. Even as Congress attempts to cut the healthcare safety net for Americans, they are creating a new safety net for gas and coal companies so that the American taxpayer backs up uneconomic investments they may make. The bill singles out gas pipelines for special help from the federal government, ensuring their approval within one year, even if the pipeline would not be approvable under current law. Another provision states that if a gas company pays a $1 million fee, it can export as much gas as it chooses, even if those exports are not in the public interest. The list goes on. This radical set of policy proposals fails the test that Graham set in 2021. They put the business plans of fossil fuel companies ahead of the health and welfare of American families. Fortunately, just as happened in 2021 with the minimum wage proposal, these provisions should be stripped out of the bill prior to congressional passage. That is, of course, if Senate rules hold and Republicans respect the traditions and precedent of the body. Greg Dotson is an associate professor at the University of Oregon School of Law. Dotson served as the chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2021 and 2022.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market
Dario Amodei, CEO of the artificial intelligence company Anthropic, published a guest essay in The New York Times Thursday arguing against a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Amodei argues that a patchwork of regulations would be better than no regulation whatsoever. Skepticism is warranted whenever the head of an incumbent firm calls for more regulation, and this case is no different. If Amodei gets his way, Anthropic would face less competition—to the detriment of AI innovation, AI security, and the consumer. Amodei's op-ed came in a response to a provision of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would prevent any states, cities, and counties from enforcing any regulation that specifically targets AI models, AI systems, or automated decision systems for 10 years. Senate Republicans have amended the clause from a simple requirement to a condition for receiving federal broadband funds, in order to comply with the Byrd Rule, which in Politico's words "blocks anything but budgetary issues from inclusion in reconciliation." Amodei begins by describing how, in a recent stress test conducted at his company, a chatbot threatened an experimenter to forward evidence of his adultery to his wife unless he withdrew plans to shut the AI down. The CEO also raises more tangible concerns, such as reports that a version of Google's Gemini model is "approaching a point where it could help people carry out cyberattacks." Matthew Mittelsteadt, a technology fellow at the Cato Institute, tells Reason that the stress test was "very contrived" and that "there are no AI systems where you must prompt it to turn it off." You can just turn it off. He also acknowledges that, while there is "a real cybersecurity danger [of] AI being used to spot and exploit cyber-vulnerabilities, it can also be used to spot and patch" them. Outside of cyberspace and in, well, actual space, Amodei sounds the alarm that AI could acquire the ability "to produce biological and other weapons." But there's nothing new about that: Knowledge and reasoning, organic or artificial—ultimately wielded by people in either case—can be used to cause problems as well as to solve them. An AI that can model three-dimensional protein structures to create cures for previously untreatable diseases can also create virulent, lethal pathogens. Amodei recognizes the double-edged nature of AI and says voluntary model evaluation and publication are insufficient to ensure that benefits outweigh costs. Instead of a 10-year moratorium, Amodei calls on the White House and Congress to work together on a transparency standard for AI companies. In lieu of federal testing standards, Amodei says state laws should pick up the slack without being "overly prescriptive or burdensome." But that caveat is exactly the kind of wishful thinking Amodei indicts proponents of the moratorium for: Not only would 50 state transparency laws be burdensome, says Mittelsteadt, but they could "actually make models less legible." Neil Chilson of the Abundance Institute also inveighed against Amodei's call for state-level regulation, which is much more onerous than Amodei suggests. "The leading state proposals…include audit requirements, algorithmic assessments, consumer disclosures, and some even have criminal penalties," Chilson tweeted, so "the real debate isn't 'transparency vs. nothing,' but 'transparency-only federal floor vs. intrusive state regimes with audits, liability, and even criminal sanctions.'" Mittelsteadt thinks national transparency regulation is "absolutely the way to go." But how the U.S. chooses to regulate AI might not have much bearing on Skynet-doomsday scenarios, because, while America leads the way in AI, it's not the only player in the game. "If bad actors abroad create Amodei's theoretical 'kill everyone bot,' no [American] law will matter," says Mittelsteadt. But such a law can "stand in the way of good actors using these tools for defense." Amodei is not the only CEO of a leading AI company to call for regulation. In 2023, Sam Altman, co-founder and then-CEO of Open AI, called on lawmakers to consider "intergovernmental oversight mechanisms and standard-setting" of AI. In both cases and in any others that come along, the public should beware of calls for AI regulation that will foreclose market entry, protect incumbent firms' profits from being bid away by competitors, and reduce the incentives to maintain market share the benign way: through innovation and product differentiation. The post This AI Company Wants Washington To Keep Its Competitors Off the Market appeared first on
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Senate proposes alternative to AI moratorium in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
Senate Commerce Committee Republicans are proposing an alternative to a controversial provision in President Trump's tax and spending bill about states' regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) after concerns arose from some GOP members. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee unveiled its proposed text for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' Thursday. The new text altered the House version's language surrounding a potential 10-year ban on state regulation of AI, which received pushback from at least two GOP senators and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The provision in the Senate version requires states to not regulate AI if they want access to federal broadband funding. This differs from the House-passed version, which would establish a blanket 10-year ban on state laws regulating AI models, systems or automated decision systems. This includes enforcement of existing and future laws on the state level. Proponents of the moratorium argue a patchwork of state laws is confusing or burdensome to technology companies trying to innovate in multiple parts of the country. While the provision sailed through the House Commerce Committee last month, it faced an uphill battle in the Senate. Some senators warned the provision may not pass the Byrd Rule, a procedural rule prohibiting 'extraneous matters' from being included in reconciliation packages. This includes provisions that do not 'change outlays or revenues.' The updated text appears to try to tie the 10-year moratorium closer to funding matters. Some GOP members also have concerns about taking power away from the states. Despite voting for the House version of the 'big, beautiful bill,' Greene admitted this week she just learned of the AI provision. 'We don't get the full bill text until very close to the time to vote for it, and so that was one section that was two pages that I didn't see,' Greene later told NewsNation, adding, 'I find it so problematic that I'm willing to come forward and admit there are two pages that I didn't read, because I never want to see a situation where state rights are stripped away.' Greene said she would vote against the spending bill when it comes back to the House unless the provision is removed. It is not clear whether the Senate version would appease her concerns. Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), both known for their criticism of major tech companies, also pushed back against the moratorium before the Senate altered the text. 'We certainly know that in Tennessee we need those protections,' Blackburn said during a hearing last month on the No Fakes Act, which would create federal protections for artists' voice, likeness and image from nonconsensual AI-generated deepfakes. 'Until we pass something that is federally preemptive, we can't call for a moratorium,' she said. Hawley said earlier this week the moratorium 'better be out,' Politico reported. Aside from AI regulatory concerns, the tax and spending bill — officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts funding for border and defense priorities, while cutting spending on programs such as food assistance and Medicaid. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
