“I am not exaggerating this: We are going the way of other sort of oligarchs and tyrannies in the world resembling them,” Moore told WPR’s “Wisconsin Today.” “This is what it looks like.”
The post US Rep. Gwen Moore warns of ‘tyranny’ in Trump administration’s actions appeared first on WPR.
Two Wisconsin Congressmen are engaged in an ongoing, public feud that has escalated to personal attacks online and an in-person quarrel that was captured on camera.
The post Pocan-Van Orden feud escalates as others call for an end to bitter political attacks appeared first on WPR.
Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders will campaign in Wisconsin Saturday for Rebecca Cooke in the 3rd Congressional District.
The post Bernie Sanders will join Rebecca Cooke in pitch to rural voters of 3rd Congressional District appeared first on WPR.
Advocates pushing to create an independent redistricting process in Wisconsin say they're alarmed by a partisan push in other states to lock in control of Congress through targeted redistricting.
The post Redistricting reform advocates alarmed by escalating gerrymandering battle appeared first on WPR.
Republican U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil was met by a hostile audience attempting to shout him down Thursday evening during his first town hall gathering since the passage of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill Act."
The post US Rep. Bryan Steil met by hostile audience during raucous town hall appeared first on WPR.
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Growth Energy, the nation’s leading biofuel trade association, hailed final passage of the President’s ‘Big Beautiful’ budget reconciliation bill, which includes a 45Z extension to support ethanol and clean fuel production.
“The president wants to go big on American energy dominance, and this legislation delivers,” said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. “An extension of 45Z will unlock billions of dollars in new investments across rural America supporting strong, stable markets for America’s farmers and positioning American biofuel producers to compete in global fuel markets. We applaud our champions in the House and Senate, who fought hard to ensure that U.S. biofuel producers are positioned to deliver more clean energy, hold down fuel costs, and restore industrial might across the heartland.”
The post Growth Energy Applauds Big Beautiful 45Z Extension appeared first on Growth Energy.
The liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear challenges brought by Democrats seeking to throw out the battleground state’s current congressional district boundaries before the 2026 midterms.
The decisions, made without explanation from the court, is a setback for Democrats who had hoped for new, friendlier district boundary lines in Wisconsin as they attempt to win back control of the House next year.
Democrats asked the court to redraw the maps, which would have put two of the state’s six congressional seats currently held by Republicans into play. It was the second time in as many years that the court had refused to hear the challenges.
Democrats hoped the court would revisit the congressional lines after it ordered state legislative boundaries redrawn. Democrats then picked up seats in the November election.
“It’s good that Wisconsin has fair maps at the state level, but we deserve them at the federal level as well,” Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan said. “Unfortunately, gerrymandered maps for members of Congress will remain in Wisconsin.”
Attorneys who brought the lawsuits did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
Republicans hold six of the state’s eight U.S. House seats, but only two of those districts are considered competitive.
Two requests to reconsider the congressional boundaries were filed with the court, which is controlled 4-3 by liberal justices. One came from the Elias Law Group, which represents Democratic groups and candidates, and the other came on behalf of voters by Campaign Legal Center.
Democrats argued that the court’s decision to redraw maps for state legislative districts a couple years ago opened the door to revisiting maps for U.S. House districts. They also argued that the current map violates the state constitution’s requirement that all Wisconsin residents be treated equally.
In 2010, the year before Republicans redrew the congressional maps, Democrats held five seats compared with three for Republicans.
The current congressional maps, drawn by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers, were approved by the state Supreme Court when it was controlled by conservative judges. The U.S. Supreme Court in March 2022 declined to block them from taking effect. And last year the state Supreme Court rejected a request to reconsider the maps without giving a reason as to why.
One of the seats that Democrats hope to flip is in western Wisconsin. Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden won an open seat in 2022 after longtime Democratic Rep. Ron Kind retired. Von Orden won reelection in the 3rd District in 2024.
The other seat they are eyeing is southeastern Wisconsin’s 1st District. Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has held it since 2019. The latest maps made that district more competitive but still favor Republicans.
Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.
Wisconsin Supreme Court refuses to hear challenges to the state’s congressional district boundaries 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.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., center, accompanied by Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., left, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., right, speaks to reporters following a weekly Republican policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 19, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
WASHINGTON — Republicans in the U.S. Senate will spend the next couple weeks defending the party’s “big beautiful bill” against Democratic criticisms and attempting to pass a final version that can win 51 votes.
Reconciliation, the name for the process under which the massive bill is being considered, comes with a lot of rules in the Senate, including that every proposal in the bill addresses federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit. And language addressing the first two cannot be deemed “merely incidental,” or it gets kicked to the curb.
Reconciliation is also favorable for the party in power, in this case Republicans, since the bill is not subject to the legislative filibuster. That means the GOP will need no more than a simple majority for passage.
As you watch and read about Senate action during the coming weeks, here are the answers to five questions about reconciliation and other ways in which Congress sets a budget and allocates taxpayer money:
Q: Where does reconciliation fit in with everything else that’s happening, like the president’s budget request, the budget resolution Congress approved earlier this year, the appropriations bills and rescissions?
A: Yeah, they really don’t make this easy.
The president’s budget request is a proposal that serves as the starting point for lawmakers’ work on a variety of fronts, including the annual appropriations bills. Nothing in the president’s budget request becomes real unless Congress takes action.
Congress’ budget resolution is separate from that request. It is a tax and spending blueprint that lawmakers are supposed to use to plan the country’s financial future for the next decade.
It is not a bill and cannot become law, but when the House and Senate adopt a budget resolution with reconciliation instructions it unlocks the process Republicans are now using to pass their “big beautiful bill” — reconciliation.
Reconciliation bills move through Congress similar to how a regular bill becomes a law. However, in the Senate, the political party using the process must defend its work to the parliamentarian, who ensures the legislation complies with the Byrd rule, which is actually a law.
In a process separate from this are the dozen annual appropriations bills, which is how Congress, with its power of the purse, funds the departments, agencies and programs that most people picture when they think about the federal government.
Those bills account for about one-third of federal spending. The other two-thirds comes from mandatory programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that lawmakers designed to run outside of the annual appropriations process.
Congress is supposed to approve the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, but lawmakers rarely complete the work before their deadline and typically have to use a stopgap spending bill to give themselves more time to negotiate full-year government funding bills.
This is why there could still be a partial government shutdown later this year, even though Congress has already adopted a budget resolution and will likely pass a budget reconciliation package in the months ahead.
Yet another process related to government spending is a rescissions request, which Trump sent to Capitol Hill earlier this month. It asks lawmakers to claw back funding approved in an earlier appropriations bill.
Just making the request allows the White House budget office to freeze funding for 45 days while the House and Senate debate the proposal. Senate approval of a rescissions bill is not subject to the chamber’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so Democratic opposition won’t stop it from becoming a reality if the vast majority of GOP senators vote to cut the previously approved spending.
Q: What are the rules for budget reconciliation bills?
A: Again, remember that in general, this type of legislation must address revenue, spending, or the debt limit. Neither political party can use the process to change policies unless they have a significant impact on federal coffers.
For example, Democrats had to remove a provision that would have raised the federal minimum wage from a reconciliation bill they passed during the Biden administration because the parliamentarian ruled it was “merely incidental.”
Q: Why didn’t the bill have to go through all these extra steps in the House?
A: Congress established the reconciliation process in a 1974 budget act and passed its first reconciliation bill in 1980. But it wasn’t until 1985 and 1986 that the Senate put extra guardrails in place.
The Byrd rule got its name from West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd, who argued that the reconciliation process needed to be more focused on budgetary issues. The Byrd rule evolved a bit over the years before being made a statute in 1990.
The Byrd rule requires each provision to change revenue or spending in a way not deemed “merely incidental.” Also, committees that receive reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution can only write bills within their jurisdiction and those committees must work within their reconciliation instructions’ fiscal targets.
In addition, proposals cannot increase the deficit outside the 10-year budget window and the package cannot change Social Security.
Q: What is a vote-a-rama?
A: Senate floor debate on a reconciliation package is much different than in the House, where GOP leaders were able to block any amendment debate.
The Senate is required to hold floor votes on reconciliation amendments and this usually leads to a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers debate dozens of amendments overnight and sometimes well after sunrise.
Democrats are likely to focus their amendments on proposals in the reconciliation bill that at least four GOP senators do not support, since that’s the minimum number Democrats would need for any of their amendments to be adopted. Republicans control the chamber with 53 votes and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President J.D. Vance.
GOP senators are likely to call for votes on their own amendments, though typically leaders try to work out many of the final details before the bill comes to the floor, to avoid potentially divisive votes.
Q: How often does Congress use this process to approve legislation?
A: Congress has approved 27 reconciliation bills since 1980, with 23 of those becoming law. Former President Bill Clinton vetoed three and former President Barack Obama vetoed one, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
During the last decade, Congress approved three reconciliation bills — Republicans’ 2017 tax law; a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package Democrats passed in 2021; and Democrats’ signature climate change, health care and tax package, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, in 2022.
If you’re interested in reading more about budget reconciliation, here is another explainer from earlier this year.
President Donald Trump signed Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions that overturn U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waivers of key California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations, aimed at enforcing stricter emissions and goals for selling zero-emission vehicles, and states and truck manufacturers are rethinking their strategies.
The CRA upends plans to implement Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT), which would require manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission chassis, including those for school buses by 2035. The CRA also targets Advanced Clean Cars II that would require all passenger car, truck and SUV sales be zero-emission in 2035 and the Omnibus Heavy-Duty Low NOx regulations for off-road emissions.
Trump signed the CRA on Thursday, and California announced it is suing the Trump administration over the President’s approval of “illegal resolutions aiming to undo key parts of the state’s clean vehicles program,” Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta said.
“Trump’s all-out assault on California continues, and this time he’s destroying our clean air and America’s global competitiveness in the process. We are suing to stop this latest illegal action by a President who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters,” Newsom said.
Additionally, the weight of the future of zero-emission vehicles and clean air requirements will fall on states and OEMs. Many OEMs are taking a wait and see approach.
“Today’s votes in the Senate fly in the face of nearly 50 years of precedent. For decades, California and other states have had the authority to adopt vehicle emissions standards that exceed those at the federal level, and for good reason,” said Dan Lashof, senior fellow at World Resources Institute (WRI), when the CRA passed the Senate May 22. “These standards are vital in protecting people from the vehicle pollution which causes asthma attacks and other serious health problems.”
CARB Chair Liane Randolph released a statement disapproving of the CRA waivers, noting that it is a “short-sighted political move” and a strike against the long-term goal of zero-emission vehicles.
“California profoundly disagrees with today’s unconstitutional, illegal and foolish vote attempting to undermine critical clean air protections,” she wrote. “It’s an assault on states’ rights the federal administration claims to support that puts national air quality standards out of reach and will have devastating effects for the 150 million Americans who breathe unhealthy air every day. These actions are contrary to the text of the Congressional Review Act, as recognized by the nonpartisan U.S. Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian. California will pursue every available remedy to challenge these actions and defend our right to protect the public from dangerous air pollution. Turning the clock back on both cleaner combustion engine requirements and zero-emission technology is an attack on clean air.”
Meanwhile, states that voted to adopt CARB’s regulations are postponing enforcement. Four of the 10 states that follow CARB (Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon and Vermont) have pushed back their ACT compliance timelines by a year or more.
While not a CARB-specific state, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection announced earlier this month it is extending its suspension of enforcement of its own Pennsylvania Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control Program until Jan. 2, 2028.
This includes school buses and the ACT rule. Gerry Wosewick, executive director of the Pennsylvania School Bus Association, said the government agency has been working hard with partner organizations to roll back this requirement.
“This has been a legislative priority for us for quite a few years now and we have been advocating for it pretty heavily during that time,” Wosewick said. “It was actually a part of [the PSBS] legislative committee’s [strategy] plan. Since this is a regulatory issue, we have had several pieces of legislation that have been entered over multiple sessions in an effort to best address this change. Despite our lobbying efforts, we have been unsuccessful in getting any legislation through.”
With the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, MTA and others, Wosewick said there was enough pressure to address the regulation, which was key to getting it delayed.
“I oftentimes refer to it as the death by a thousand paper cuts in Pennsylvania,” he added. “While our contractors are phenomenal and find new and innovative ways to continue operations, it’s the constant small regulatory and statutory changes that keep making it more difficult to operate in the industry.”
Instead, he commented the industry should be able to work collaboratively to focus on timely emissions rollouts, as opposed to being forced to respond to regulatory drives.
Related: Despite Federal Funding in Peril, California State Funding for EVs Continues
Related: CARB Uses $33M in Funding to Target Other Zero-Emissions School Travel
Related: The State of Green School Buses
Related: Report Highlights Shift in Federal Policy from EVs to Conventional Fuels
Back at the federal level, the budget reconciliation bill passed by the House of Representatives May 22 is a comprehensive piece of legislation proposing significant changes, including scaling back the tax credits for clean energy included in the Inflation Reduction Act.
WRI noted that if the cuts in the current iteration of the bill are passed, “average Americans will see severe consequences: Businesses will face more red tape and uncertainty; it will be more difficult and costly to meet growing electricity demand; consumers will see skyrocketing electricity prices; workers will lose jobs; and local governments will encounter barriers to implementing programs that benefit their communities and save money,” it said in a statement.
The organization added that it would erase much of the $400 billion in investment and savings that clean energy tax credits have generated thus far.
“The proposed sudden elimination of the credits, which support low and no emission vehicle technologies, including the Qualified Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit (45W) and the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property Credit (30C), will not only hinder the transition to cleaner vehicles and healthier communities but will pose immediate logistical and financial challenges to school districts, municipalities and others who have already made plans and budget decisions predicated on being able to access these credits,” WRI said. “Moreover, eliminating these credits means we are limiting consumer choice and ceding competitiveness in this growing market to China.”
The article has been updated to reflect Trump signing the CRA.
The post Update: Congress Shifts Tide in Regulatory Demands for Clean Energy appeared first on School Transportation News.
Wisconsin would lose about $314 million in food assistance from the federal government under the massive budget bill passed by the U.S. House last week, according to an analysis of the proposed cuts by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services.
The legislation, which President Donald Trump refers to as the “big, beautiful bill,” would require states to start matching federal funds for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. It would also impose new work requirements on families with young children and older people, and it would require regular paperwork to prove exemptions from such requirements for some groups, such as families with special needs children.
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Wisconsin Medicaid Director Bill Hanna said those changes amount to new red tape that could cause 90,000 Wisconsinites to lose some or all assistance.
He said that would put new pressure on nonprofits like food pantries and have ripple effects at the retailers where people spend what’s commonly known as food stamps.
The proposal would push many costs onto the state, where lawmakers and the governor are in the process of deciding the next two-year budget.
“There’s going to be more demand to put state money into a program that has been 100 percent federally funded for really its entire existence, which will strain the state’s ability to put its state dollars towards other things like education, our health care system and other important aspects of what we do with our state dollars,” Hanna said.
Those state costs are calculated based on a given state’s error rates, which tend to occur when a person’s income or residence changes unexpectedly. Hanna said that Wisconsin has a low error rate but is lumped into a bracket with states with much higher error rates, and charged accordingly.
“These errors are not fraud,” DHS wrote in a statement. “For the first time ever, Congress is proposing an extreme, zero tolerance policy for payment errors harming states like Wisconsin that consistently keep error rates low.”
States would also be responsible for covering new administrative costs and for providing job training to people newly obligated to fulfill work requirements.
All six of Wisconsin’s Republican congressmen voted for the bill. Both of Wisconsin’s Democratic House members voted against it.
Over the weekend, U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Prairie du Chien, argued that anyone “legally receiving SNAP benefits should not see a single reduction in their SNAP.”
Hanna argued that’s because the federal government is “changing the definition of ‘legally receiving SNAP.’”
“They are adding additional red tape to folks to meet that by expanding those work requirements,” he said. “There certainly will be people who get caught up in the new red tape that they have to meet in order to achieve the benefits.”
Currently, about 700,000 Wisconsin residents — or an eighth of the state — receive SNAP.
This story was originally published by WPR.
Trump bill would cost Wisconsin $314 million in federal food aid 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.
House Republicans were jubilant after muscling through President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax and immigration package by a single vote. But across the Capitol, senators were more cautious.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune can afford to lose three Republican senators and still pass the bill, and there are more than that, right now, who have problems with it. Like the House, he will have to balance the concerns from moderate and conservative members of his conference.
Republicans’ aspirational deadline is July 4, ahead of a potential debt default. Thune said groups of senators had already been meeting to discuss the legislation and that they would want to take some time to review it. “And then we’ll put our stamp on it,” he said.
“We’ll see how it goes,” Thune said. “What does it take to get to 51?”
A look at a few of the potential sticking points in the Senate:
Several Republican senators have said the House’s multi-trillion-dollar tax package doesn’t have enough savings. Thune said many in his GOP conference favor the tax breaks in the bill but “when it comes to the spending side of the equation, this is a unique moment in time, in history, where we have the House and the Senate and the White House, and an opportunity to do something meaningful about how to control government spending.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., a sharp critic of the House bill, wants the United States to go back to pre-pandemic spending levels. He has indicated he would be a no on the bill as it stands now, and he says he has at least three other senators aligned with him.
Senate Republicans are generally on board with stricter work requirements for older Medicaid recipients that make up much of the bill’s $700 billion savings from the program. But Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Susan Collins of Maine, among others, have voiced concerns about other changes in the bill that could potentially cut funding to rural hospitals or increase copays and other health care costs for recipients.
The senators could have a powerful ally in Trump, who has frequently said he doesn’t want cuts to Medicaid, even as he’s endorsed the House bill. Hawley said he talked to Trump this week on the phone and “his exact words were, ‘Don’t touch it, Josh.’”
Others have been wary of the House bill’s effort to shift some costs of the food stamp program to states, potentially a major issue for some red states that have high numbers of food aid recipients. The House bill saves $290 billion from the food aid, and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman said the Senate savings will be “probably be a little bit lower.”
Thune said this week that “one of the principal differences” between the House and Senate is that Republican senators want to make many of the tax cuts permanent while the House bill has shorter time frames for many of its cuts — including no taxes on tips, overtime pay, car-loan interest and others.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo said Thursday that trying to make some of the cuts permanent is “an objective right now.”
One of the biggest questions for the Senate: whether the tax breaks really need to be offset by cuts elsewhere.
To offset the costs of lost tax revenue, House Republicans have proposed more than $1 trillion in spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and green energy program rollbacks. However, Republicans in the Senate do not believe there is a cost associated with permanently extending the existing taxes, setting up a political and procedural showdown ahead.
The House bill includes a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has warned that the United States is on track to run out of money to pay its bills as early as August without congressional action.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he won’t support the bill if the debt ceiling increase is included. He said he’s willing to consider it if it’s taken out.
But most Republican senators want it to avoid a separate fight that would require 60 votes in the Senate. Texas Sen. John Cornyn said that if they deal with the debt ceiling outside of the legislation then they would have to “pay a king’s ransom” to Democrats to get enough votes.
Several Republican senators have said they are concerned about House provisions that repeal or phase out clean energy tax credits passed in 2022 that have spurred investment in many states.
Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, John Curtis of Utah and Moran wrote Thune a letter last month arguing that removing the credits could “create uncertainty, jeopardizing capital allocation, long-term project planning, and job creation in the energy sector and across our broader economy.”
The House bill would ban states and localities from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade, giving the federal government more control over the policy. It’s an approach that has been favored by the AI industry but has drawn concern from members on both sides of the aisle.
And even if it has enough support, the provision may not pass muster from the Senate parliamentarian because it’s unlikely to have impact on the federal budget.
With a narrow margin for victory and only 53 Republicans in the Senate, every senator’s top priority takes on outsize importance. South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds said he supports the House bill but that the way that it deals with spectrum auctions — selling off telecommunications signal rights — is a “dealbreaker” for him. He said he’s in talks with other senators on the issue.
Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said one of his main goals is that they include money for certain farm safety net programs and set up passage for a broader farm bill later this year.
“In the end, we have to have 50 plus one supporting it,” Hoeven said. “So we’ve got some work to do.”
What to watch as Trump’s tax and immigration bill moves to Senate 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.
New Poll: American Voters Support Federal Investments in Electric Vehicles Broad, Bipartisan Support for EV Investments and Incentives that Lower Costs, Expand Access, and Help the U.S. Beat China in the Race for Auto Manufacturing WASHINGTON, D.C. – A new bipartisan national poll conducted by Meeting Street Insights and Hart Research finds broad public support …
The post Support for Electric Vehicles appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 7, 2025) – Late yesterday, the Federal Highway Administration?halted?new funding for state programs to install tens of thousands of new vehicle chargers along highways and at rest stops across the nation. A key part of the 2022 bipartisan infrastructure law, all 50 states have federally approved plans to build these fast chargers, …
The post New Federal Vehicle Charging Funds Halted appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.
Current methods used to process hydrogen into a usable fuel are cost-prohibitive, but several new innovations are promising to open the door to cost-competitive green hydrogen. Hydrogen is well positioned to be the fuel of the future. However, a commercially viable transition to green hydrogen – the environmentally friendly version of the fuel – seems …
The post Fueling the Future: Unlocking Low-Cost Green Hydrogen appeared first on Alternative Energy HQ.
Login