U.S. Senate Majority Leader Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., left, listens as Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, center, speaks to reporters outside of the West Wing of the White House on June4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republican Leader John Thune will spend a crucial next few weeks working behind the scenes with other top GOP senators to reshape the party’s “big beautiful bill” — a balancing test accompanied in recent days by incendiary exchanges between President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk over whether the current proposals are so bad that Congress should just go back to the drawing board.

South Dakota’s Thune will need to gain support from deficit hawks, who want to see the mega-bill cut at least $2 trillion in spending, and moderates, who are closely monitoring how less federal funding for safety net programs like Medicaid and food assistance could harm their constituents and home-state institutions like rural hospitals.

Interviews by States Newsroom with Republican senators in early June showed many major elements of the package could change, including provisions that would put states on the hook for unanticipated costs. Arkansas Sen. John Boozman, for example, indicated the Senate may rewrite a proposal in the House-passed bill that would shift some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides food aid to low-income people, to state governments.

“We can do whatever we want to do,” the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee chairman said when asked by States Newsroom about amending that policy.

The final deal — intended to extend the 2017 tax cuts — cannot lose more than three GOP senators and still make it back across the Capitol to the House for final approval, since all Democrats are expected to oppose the bill. Thune only needs a majority vote in the Senate for the special process being used by Republicans.

Internal debates about just how to rework the Trump-backed tax and spending cuts measure began in the first week of June during meetings on Capitol Hill and at the White House, as GOP senators began critiquing the House-passed package line-by-line to ensure it complies with their strict rules for the complex reconciliation process and their policy goals.

Republicans said during interviews that several provisions in the House version likely won’t comply with the chamber’s Byrd rule, which could force lawmakers to toss out some provisions.

Complicating all of it was the very public back-and-forth between not just Trump but GOP leaders and former White House adviser Musk over the bill, which Musk on social media labeled “a disgusting abomination” and a “big, ugly spending bill” for its effect on the deficit and debt limit. “KILL the BILL,” Musk said on X, the platform he owns. Senate leaders so far have dismissed Musk’s criticisms.

Fragile House coalition

The talks, and whatever the legislation looks like after a marathon amendment voting session expected in late June, have already raised deep concerns among House GOP lawmakers, who will have to vote on the bill again in order to send it to Trump.

The extremely narrow majorities mean House Republican leaders cannot lose more than four of their own members if all the lawmakers in that chamber vote on the party-line bill.

Any changes the Senate makes could unbalance the fragile coalition of votes Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., cobbled together last month for a 215-214 vote. But GOP senators are adamant they will amend the legislation.

Complicating matters is a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that shows the proposed changes to tax law, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and higher education aid wouldn’t actually help to reduce deficits during the next decade but raise them by more than $2.4 trillion.

The numbers are the exact opposite for what Republicans hoped their sweeping tax and spending cuts package would accomplish.

Scrutiny begins

The first stop for the House-passed reconciliation package in the Senate appears to be the parliamentarian’s office, where staff have begun evaluating whether each provision in the current version of the bill complies with the upper chamber’s strict rules.

Boozman said staff on his panel have already begun meeting with the parliamentarian to go over the House provisions within its jurisdiction.

He expects that section of the package will have to change to comply with the strict rules that govern the reconciliation process in the Senate and to better fit that chamber’s policy goals.

“We can’t really decide exactly what we want to use in the House version until we know what’s eligible,” Boozman said. “We’ve got some other ideas too that we asked them about. But we need to know, of the ideas that we have, what would be viable options as far as being Byrd eligible.”

The Byrd rule, which is actually a law, requires reconciliation bills to address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit. This generally bars lawmakers from using the special budget process to change policies that don’t have a significant impact on those three areas.

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is campaigning to become his home state’s next governor, said pushing some of the cost of the nutrition program to states may be problematic.

“We’re trying to send more costs to the states. Most states can’t afford that, so we want to take care of people, but we need people to go back to work,” Tuberville said. “It’s not a forever entitlement. It’s for part-time, you know, take care of yourself until you get a job, go back to work and let people that need it really, really get it.”

Rural hospitals on edge

Senate GOP leaders will have to navigate how best to reduce federal spending on Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower-income people and some with disabilities, that is relied on by tens of millions of Americans, many of whom are loyal Republican voters.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that 7.8 million people would lose access to Medicaid during the next decade if the House’s policy changes are implemented as written.

There are also concerns among GOP lawmakers about how losing the revenue that comes with treating Medicaid patients would impact rural health care access and hospitals.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said under no circumstances would he vote for a bill that cuts benefits to Medicaid recipients and is worried about how provisions in the House package would affect rural hospitals.

“They’re very concerned about it, rightly so,” Hawley said, referring to conversations he’s had with health care systems in his home state.

“This is something that we need to work on. I don’t know why we would penalize rural hospitals,” he added. “If you want to reduce health care spending, then cap the price of prescription drugs. I mean, that’s the way to do it. If you want to get major savings in the health care sector, don’t close rural hospitals, don’t take away benefits from working people. Cap the costs, cap the price that (the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) is going to pay for prescription drugs.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said she’s not yet come to a decision about whether to keep, amend, or completely scrap some of the House changes to Medicaid.

“I talked to a lot of our hospitals when I was home to see what the impacts would be, because we have a very high Medicaid population,” Capito said. “I want to see it work and be preserved, but I want it to be there for future generations. And it’s just getting way out of control on the spend side. So right now, we’re looking at everything.”

Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy — chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — said he doesn’t expect all of the health care provisions in the House bill make it through the “Byrd bath” with the parliamentarian. But he declined to go into detail.

“Some of it is more regulatory, that’s all I can say,” Cassidy said.

West Virginia’s Sen. Jim Justice said he is in favor of requiring some Medicaid enrollees to work, participate in community service, or attend an educational program at least 80 hours a month to stay on the program, a sentiment shared by many of his GOP colleagues.

“I’m good with every bit of that,” he said. 

But Justice expects the Senate will make its own changes to the package and that it will be “proud of their own pond.”

“Any frog that’s not proud of your own pond’s not much of a frog,” Justice said.

He did not go into detail on what those changes would entail.

SALT shakers

The state and local tax deduction, or SALT, represents another tightrope  for Thune, who is no fan of the changes made in the House. But he has said repeatedly this week he understands altering that language too much could mean a Senate-amended version of the bill never makes it back through the House to actually become law.

Thune said outside the White House following a June 4 meeting with Trump and others that there will very likely be changes to SALT.

“There isn’t a single Republican senator who cares much about the SALT issue,” Thune said. “It’s just not an issue that plays.” States that are most affected generally don’t elect Republicans to the Senate.

The House tax-writing panel originally proposed raising the SALT cap from $10,000 to $30,000, but Johnson had to raise that to $40,000 in order to secure votes from House Republicans who represent higher tax states like California, New Jersey and New York. The revised cap would benefit more high-income taxpayers in their states.

“In 2017, that was one of the best reforms we had in the bill,” Thune said. “But we understand it’s about 51 and 218. So we will work with our House counterparts and with the White House to try to get that issue in a place where we can deliver the votes and get the bill across the finish line.”

Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate, but can rely on Vice President J.D. Vance to break a tied vote if necessary.

At least 218 House lawmakers must vote to pass bills when all 435 seats are filled. But with three vacancies at the moment, legislation can move through that chamber with 216 votes. The GOP has 220 seats at the moment, meaning Johnson can afford four defections on party-line bills.

North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven told reporters this week that he’d like to see GOP senators rework the SALT section of the bill, even if that causes challenges for Speaker Johnson’s ability to pass a final version.

“Let’s talk about SALT, for example. The House has a very large SALT number. The Senate is probably going to take a look at that,” Hoeven said. “There’ll be a lot of areas we can look at. There’ll be other things we’re going to look at. We’d like to get to $2 trillion in savings.”

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno joined in putting his House colleagues on notice that they likely won’t get the agreement they struck with the speaker in the final version of the bill.

“I think we’re going to make common-sense changes. For example, the SALT cap, by the way, something that definitely helps very wealthy people in blue states,” Moreno said. “I think that cap, the 400% increase, is too much, so we’re going to work on tweaking that.”

Hawley, of Missouri, speaking more generally about the tax provisions, said he would like the Senate to make sure middle-class Americans benefit from the tax changes, just as much as companies.

“I want to be clear, I’m in favor of additional tax relief for working people. So my view is this corporate tax rate, which they lowered in 2017, they made that permanent back then. I know some workers that would like permanent tax relief,” Hawley said. “So I think it’s imperative that we do some addition to tax relief for workers. So I think that’s important.”

A new $4 trillion debt limit

Deficit hawks in the Senate have also voiced objections to raising the nation’s debt limit by $4 trillion, arguing that GOP leaders haven’t done enough to assuage their concerns about the nation’s fiscal trajectory.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul argued that the debt limit increase is more about next year’s midterm elections than good governance.

“​​This is really about avoiding having to talk about the debt during election times because people like to go home and talk to the Rotary or the Lions Club and tell them how they’re fiscally conservative and they’re against debt,” Paul said. “It’s embarrassing to them to have to vote to keep raising the debt. But they’re unwilling to have the courage to actually look at all spending.”

Paul suggested that House Republicans created problems by inflating some of the spending levels in their package, including to continue construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Paul is chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

“The $46.5 billion for the wall is eight times higher than the current cost of the wall. If you’re going to do 1,000 miles, you can actually do it for $6.5 billion. They want $46.5 billion,” Paul said. “We can’t be fiscally conservative until it comes to the border, and then we’re no longer fiscally conservative.”

The border wall has been a constant focus for Trump, who made it a central part of his 2016 presidential campaign, when he said repeatedly that the United States would build it and Mexico would pay for it.

South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Budget Committee, hinted during a brief interview that Congress can only cut so much spending without going near programs like Social Security, which accounted for $1.5 trillion in expenditures last year, or Medicare, which spent $865 billion. Both are normally considered untouchable.

“I think we’re going to make some changes to try to find more spending reductions. I think that’s a fair criticism of the bill, but you can’t do Social Security by law,” Graham said, referring to one of the many rules that govern the reconciliation process. “Nobody’s proposed anything in the Medicare area.”

Graham added that “trying to make the bill more fiscally responsible is a good thing, but we need to pass it.” 

Multiple Wisconsin health care systems have removed diversity, equity and inclusion language or resources from their websites in the wake of President Donald Trump’s federal ban on funding for DEI programming.

The systems include SSM Health, Aurora Health, UW Health and, most recently, Ascension. Froedtert ThedaCare Health has maintained its DEI webpage, though it removed a link to its equal employment opportunity policy in recent months. 

Aurora Health, Ascension, Froedtert and SSM Health made the changes quietly, without directly alerting the public. UW Health, however, released an op-ed in Madison 365 April 8 explaining the changes.

“As we enter the next phase of this important work, we are further aligning with our organizational mission under the name of Social Impact and Belonging,” the op-ed said. “This reflects both the evolved nature of the work and our desire that these mission-focused priorities endure despite the current tumultuous political environment.”

The changes occurred in the weeks after President Donald Trump’s executive order abolishing DEI programs from all federally funded institutions and programs. 

The executive order, issued Jan. 20, states the “Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military.” 

In response to attacks on DEI programs by the federal government, some organizations have pushed back, arguing Trump’s actions are a threat to a multiracial democracy. Some institutions are also suing the federal government for its actions, such as threatening to withhold federal grants and funding. 

Harvard University has filed a lawsuit, citing First Amendment principles to protect “academic freedom” and “private actors’ speech.”

But while some federally funded institutions are pushing back, others are not.

Different approaches to DEI purge

In the past couple of months, SSM Health removed the word “diversity” from its website, including changing a page titled “Our Commitment to Diversity” to “Our Commitment to Healthy Culture.”

SSM has hospitals located throughout Wisconsin including Ripon, Fond du Lac, Waupun, Baraboo, Janesville, Madison and Monroe.

In changing the webpage, SSM Health also removed an entire section regarding its commitment to fostering a diverse workplace and health care center, including a section that read, “​​SSM Health makes it a point to work with diverse organizations broadening our reach into the communities we serve to support and promote a more inclusive society.”

SSM Health also notably replaced the section discussing diversity with comment on SSM Health’s mission as a Catholic ministry. On the updated page, the system discusses its commitment to follow in the footsteps of its founders to ensure “all people have access to the high-quality, compassionate care they need.” 

In removing the word “diversity,” SSM replaced the statement “At SSM Health, diversity is an integral part of who we are and a reflection of our mission and values” with “At SSM Health, inclusion is an integral part of who we are and a reflection of our Mission, Vision and Values.”

”Today, our belief that every person was created in the image of God with inherent dignity and value calls us to foster a healthy culture, inviting each person to be the best version of themselves,” SSM Health communications consultant Shari Wrezinski said when asked for comment. 

Wrezinski said the organization’s mission has remained the same, and its communications, policies, programs and practices reflect the organization’s mission.

“This has not and will not change,” Wrezinski said. “As such, our website and other communications materials are continually updated as we strive to clearly convey our commitment to a welcoming environment where everyone feels valued and respected.”

Despite removing the section on diversity, SSM Health has maintained its equal opportunity section.

Froedtert did the opposite, by maintaining its webpages on diversity, equity and inclusion, but removing its equal opportunity policy document from the pages. 

The equal opportunity document, which can still be found online but was removed from the DEI website, specifically outlines Froedtert’s commitment and policy to maintain equitable and nondiscriminatory recruitment, hiring and human resources practices. 

The document outlines two policies specifically: “FH is committed to its affirmative action policies and practices in employment programs to achieve a balanced workforce” and “FH will provide equal opportunity to all individuals, regardless of their race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, military and veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or any other characteristics protected by state or federal law.”

Froedtert did not respond to requests for comment. 

The Froedtert system serves patients primarily in the Milwaukee area. Froedtert recently merged with ThedaCare, serving Wisconsin residents in the Fox Valley and Green Bay. In 2020, the system reported receiving tens of millions in federal funding through the CARES Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While removing a link to an equal opportunity document may be a simple change, the Rev. Marilyn Miller, a partner in Leading for Racial Equity LLC, said every small change pushes society further back in achieving full access and equity. 

“So it might be a small tweak now, but what does that open the door to later? So, yeah, it’s impactful because any change that’s stepping back from full equity is a problem,” Miller said. “There’s populations that don’t feel any security anymore.”

Aurora Health Care also has removed DEI language in the past couple of months since the executive order. 

In 2018, Aurora merged with Advocate Health, a system with more than 26 hospitals throughout the Midwest. Advocate Aurora Health later merged with Atrium Health in 2022, creating the third largest nonprofit in the nation.

Earlier this year, Aurora removed an entire page on diversity, equity and inclusion. The page now redirects to Advocate’s page titled “Access & Opportunity.”

That change cut statements such as: “Our diversity, equity and inclusion strategy is anchored by our purpose to help people live well and to deliver safe, consistent, and equitable health outcomes and experiences for the patients and communities we serve.” 

A spokesperson for Aurora Health Care said the organization will continue to “deliver compassionate, high-quality, consistent care for all those we serve.”

“As our newly combined purpose and commitments state, we lift everyone up by ensuring access and opportunity for all,” the spokesperson said. “To provide our patients and communities clear and consistent information that explains our programs, policies and services, we are making various changes to our websites.”

Ascension, one of the largest nonprofit hospital systems in the nation, took down the entire page on diversity, equity and inclusion. The health care system currently operates at over 165 locations in Milwaukee, Racine, Appleton and Fox Valley.  The system still has modules on “Identifying & Addressing Barriers to Health” and “Ensuring Health Equity.” Ascension did not respond to a request for a comment.

Making a statement

UW Health removed its page on diversity, equity and inclusion, replacing it with a page titled “social impact and belonging.” In doing so, UW Health removed “anti-racism” from its entire website. It used to be one of the main themes.

UW Health removed the anti-racism modules titled “Being a leader in anti-racism” and “anti-racism funding,” and now in their place are modules called “Being a social impact leader” and “Community giving.” 

Chief Social Impact Officer Shiva Bidar-Sielaff and CEO Alan Kaplan addressed the changes in a video, stating social impact and belonging align with their mission, values and strategies as a health care organization.

“At UW Health, social impact refers to the effects health care policies, practices and interventions have on the well-being of individuals and communities, improving health outcomes, access to care and quality of life,” Bidar-Sielaff said. “Belonging is the understanding that you are valued and respected for who you are as an individual.”

The UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, which has faculty who also work for and provide clinical care at UW Health, reported receiving $315 million in federal research funding last year. That total is 37% of all grant funding awarded to UW-Madison. UW Health received roughly $5.1 million in federal grants.

Despite claims by health care centers that missions remain the same, advocacy groups in Wisconsin are raising concerns regarding the impact these changes could have on communities in Wisconsin.

Chris Allen, president and CEO of Diverse & Resilient — an advocacy group focused on health inequities for LGBTQ+ people in Wisconsin — said these quiet language shifts are significant. 

“They send a message that commitments to addressing disparities may be weakening, even if that’s not the stated intention,” Allen said. 

William Parke Sutherland, government affairs director at Kids Forward, a statewide policy center that advocates for low-income and minority families, said many health care partners feel pressured to preserve funding sources.

In Wisconsin, maternal mortality rates are 2.5 times higher for Black women than white women. Maternal morbidities — or serious birth complications — were the highest among Black women and people enrolled in BadgerCare, the state’s largest Medicaid program. From 2020 to 2022 there were 7.8 stillbirth deaths per 1,000 births among Black babies, compared with 4.5 among white babies.

Disparities in maternal and infant mortality rates could be attributed to stress caused by poverty, lack of access to quality care, or systemic racism, according to health care researchers. If a mother is stressed over a long period of time, that can cause elevated levels of stress hormones, which could increase premature births or low birth weights for infants.

For Black women, midwives have been found to reduce the disparities they otherwise may experience during pregnancy, reducing the risk of maternal mortality or morbidity. Access to midwives is currently covered by Medicaid, so losing federal funding could harm these services.

Regardless of language, “Wisconsin’s racial disparities in health access and outcomes aren’t going away on their own,” Sutherland said in an email.

Removing language that acknowledges DEI efforts will not reduce the health care disparities felt by Wisconsin residents, Sutherland said. Federal funding cuts could also hurt rural families in Wisconsin, specifically those who rely on Medicaid for their health care needs. 

“We cannot begin to address these challenges if we’re not willing to acknowledge them,” Sutherland said. “A colorblind approach has not helped in the past.”

Editor’s note: This story was updated to correct a reference to how much federal funding UW Health receives.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters for original stories and our Friday news roundup.

We don’t talk about DEI: Wisconsin hospital systems are quietly removing diversity language is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

People wait outside of the Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital in Houston. For years, states have taxed hospitals and other health care providers to draw down federal matching funds and help finance their Medicaid programs. Now, states may lose their ability to raise or implement new taxes. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

The tax and spending bill the U.S. House approved targets a strategy states have used to boost the Medicaid dollars they get from the federal government. The measure would cap or freeze the taxes states levy on medical providers, potentially leaving states with major holes in their Medicaid budgets.

As a result, states would face the choice of either replacing the lost federal money with state dollars, scaling back services or providing coverage to fewer people.

Medicaid is a joint state-federal program, primarily for people with low incomes. For the traditional Medicaid population — children and their caregivers, people with disabilities and pregnant women — the federal government matches state Medicaid spending on a sliding scale, ranging from 50% for the wealthiest states to 77% for the poorest ones.

Consider a state that gets half of its Medicaid funding from the federal government. If that state collects $100 million by taxing providers, it can use $50 million of the revenue to draw down $50 million in federal matching funds, which it can use to expand Medicaid coverage to more people. Then it can take the remaining $50 million in revenue and use that money to draw down $50 million in federal dollars to pay providers more for caring for Medicaid patients.

Forty-nine states — all but Alaska — use the strategy. In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, states relied on provider taxes to fund 17% of their Medicaid spending, up from 7% in 2008, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

As part of their effort to cut federal Medicaid spending by roughly $625 billion over the next decade, House Republicans have proposed capping the state provider taxes and freezing them in place, preventing states from raising them or implementing new ones in response to inflation. Under current law, states can levy taxes of up to 6% on tax providers’ net revenue. The GOP measure also would add work requirements for Medicaid recipients, a step that would save money by reducing the rolls.

A report from the Congressional Budget Office, the bipartisan research arm of Congress, says eliminating the taxes entirely could save the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.

Many conservatives say the taxes are an accounting trick that allows states to draw down money from the federal government without having to front their true share of the Medicaid program. Some have even called the provider taxes a “money laundering” scheme.

“States are gaming the system — creating complex tax schemes that shift their responsibility to invest in Medicaid and rob federal taxpayers,” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in a May 12 news release.

Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative policy group that is working with Republicans to formulate Medicaid cuts, described provider taxes as “a way that states and providers can rip off the federal government.”

“States need to have some accountability for the spending in their programs,” Blase said.

But advocates of these taxes, including state Medicaid directors and even the hospitals that pay the taxes, describe them as legal and legitimate financial tools that have helped providers cover essential services and states fund their Medicaid programs for years. The result of eliminating these taxes or freezing them, they say, will be hospital closures and service cuts.

“We don’t like to pay these taxes, but the alternative is resources or access to care aren’t there for that community,” said Jason Pray, vice president of legislative affairs at America’s Essential Hospitals, an association representing about 350 hospitals. “The state would more than likely have to then tax individuals to make up for that, to keep the services at the same level and keep the resources at the same level.”

Blase said the provider taxes allow hospitals to make windfall profits from the additional federal matching funds that flow back to them, representing a type of “corporate welfare.”

But Pray said often hospitals in his association are losing money. By allowing states to boost payments to hospitals and other providers that serve Medicaid patients, he said, the tax enables hospitals to stay open in the long run, not garner a windfall.

Pray also noted that in the past, support for the taxes has been bipartisan.

“Republicans for years have shown they support provider taxes and have understood the value of them,” he said.

Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, pointed out that some hospitals pay the tax and don’t get much back, because they serve few Medicaid patients. The hospitals that benefit most are the so-called safety net hospitals that do care for many low-income patients, he said.

Park said he is worried that once the strategy is off the table, states will have to cut their Medicaid spending to balance their budgets.

Jay Ludlam, deputy secretary for North Carolina Medicaid, is worried about that, too. In North Carolina, Ludlam said, almost all of the tax revenue the state collects from providers helps pay for Medicaid services.

“The money goes to providers when they provide services. It’s not special. It’s just another way that states tax themselves and put money into the program,” Ludlam told Stateline. “If it means that there’s going to be less money in Medicaid … we’ll have to cut eligibility, cut benefits, cut provider rates, in order to maintain the program.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.