House

Nonpartisan analysts say bill would add $3-5tn to the nation’s $36.2tn debt over the next decade.

United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax-cut bill has won approval from a key congressional committee to advance towards possible passage in the House of Representatives later this week.

The rare Sunday night vote marks a big win for Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, after hardline Republican conservatives on Friday blocked the bill from clearing the House Budget Committee over a dispute involving spending cuts to the Medicaid healthcare programme for lower-income Americans and the repeal of green energy tax credits.

Four hardline members of the committee’s 21 Republicans allowed the legislation to advance by voting “present”. The bill passed in a 17-16 vote, with all Democrats voting against it.

The hardliners had spent much of the day in closed-door negotiations with House Republican leaders and White House officials.

Johnson met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”

Republican House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington said he expects deliberations to continue on into the week, “right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill before the House”.

Nonpartisan analysts say the bill, which would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump’s signature first-term legislative win, would add $3 trillion to $5 trillion to the $36.2 trillion national debt over the next decade.

Credit ratings agency Moody’s cited the rising debt, which it said was on track to reach 134 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035, for its decision on Friday to downgrade the US’s credit rating.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that the bill would spur economic growth sufficient to offset any growth in the debt, adding that he did not put much credence in Moody’s downgrade.

Economic experts have warned that the downgrade – following previous downgrades by Fitch Ratings and S&P – is a clear sign that the US has too much debt and lawmakers need to either increase revenues or spend less.

Trump’s Republicans hold a 220-213 majority in the House, and are divided over how deeply to slash spending to offset the cost of the tax cuts.

Hardliners want cuts to Medicaid, which some Republican senators have pushed back against, saying it would hurt the very voters who elected Trump in November, and whose support they will need in 2026 when control of Congress is again up for grabs.

The bill’s cuts would kick 8.6 million people off Medicaid.

It also aims to eliminate taxes on tips and some overtime income – both Trump campaign promises – while boosting defence spending and providing more funds for Trump’s border crackdown.

Democratic US Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said the credit rating cut spelled trouble for Americans.

“That is a big deal. That means that we are likely headed for a recession,” Murphy told NBC’s Meet the Press.

“These guys are running the economy recklessly.”

WASHINGTON — Republicans advanced their massive tax cut and border security package out of a key House committee during a rare Sunday night vote as conservatives who blocked the measure two days earlier reversed course after gaining commitments on the package’s spending cuts.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) met with Republican lawmakers shortly before the meeting, telling reporters that the changes agreed to were “just some minor modifications. Not a huge thing.”

Democrats on the panel pressed for more details about the changes that Republicans had agreed to in the private negotiations. But Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he could not do so.

“Deliberations continue at this very moment,” Arrington said. “They will continue on into the week, and I suspect right up until the time we put this big, beautiful bill on the floor of the House.”

The first time Republicans tried advancing the bill out of the Budget Committee, hard-right Republicans joined with Democrats in voting against sending the measure to the full House. Five Republicans voted no, one on procedural grounds, the other four voicing concerns about the bill’s effect on federal budget deficits.

On Sunday evening, the four voicing concerns about the deficit voted present, and the measure passed by a vote of 17 to 16.

Johnson is looking to put the bill on the House floor before the end of the week.

“This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate that the American people gave us in the last election,” he said on “Fox News Sunday” in advance of the vote.

The Republicans who criticized the measure noted that the bill’s new spending and tax cuts are front-loaded in the bill, while the measures to offset the cost are back-loaded. For example, they are looking to speed up the new work requirements that Republicans want to enact for Medicaid recipients. Those requirements would not kick in until 2029 under the current bill.

“We are writing checks we cannot cash, and our children are going to pay the price,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the committee. “Something needs to change, or you’re not going to get my support.”

Johnson said the start date for the work requirements was designed to give states time to “retool their systems” and to “make sure that all the new laws and all the new safeguards that we’re placing can actually be enforced.”

Roy was joined in voting no by Reps. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia. Rep. Lloyd Smucker of Pennsylvania switched his vote to no in a procedural step so it could be reconsidered later.

The vote against advancing the bill had come after President Trump urged Republicans in a social media post to unite behind it.

At its core, the sprawling package permanently extends the existing income tax cuts that were approved during Trump’s first term, in 2017, and adds temporary new ones that the president campaigned on in 2024, including no taxes on tips, overtime pay and auto loan interest payments. The measure also proposes big spending increases for border security and defense.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, estimates that the House bill is shaping up to add roughly $3.3 trillion to the debt over the next decade.

Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the measure, which Republicans have labeled “The One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called it “one big, beautiful betrayal” in Friday’s hearing.

“This spending bill is terrible, and I think the American people know that,” Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union’’ on Sunday. “There is nothing wrong with us bringing the government in balance. But there is a problem when that balance comes on the back of working men and women. And that’s what is happening here.”

Johnson is not just having to address the concerns of those in his conference who raised concerns about the deficit. He’s also facing pressure from centrists who will be warily eyeing the proposed changes to Medicaid, food assistance programs and the rolling back of clean energy tax credits. Republican lawmakers from New York and elsewhere are also demanding a much large state and local tax deduction.

As it stands, the bill proposes tripling what’s currently a $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction, increasing it to $30,000 for joint filers with incomes up to $400,000 a year.

Rep. Nick LaLota, one of the New York GOP lawmakers leading the effort to lift the cap, said they have proposed a deduction of $62,000 for single filers and $124,000 for joint filers.

If the bill passes the House this week, it would move to the Senate, where Republicans are seeking additional changes that could make final passage in the House more difficult.

Johnson said: “The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they don’t make many modifications to it because that will ensure its passage quickly.”

Freking and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

May 18 (UPI) — The House Budget Committee advanced President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” in a rare Sunday night vote.

They met at 10 p.m. to consider the bill that extends Trump’s tax cuts, increases border funding priorities and requires Medicaid recipients to work.

The measure passed 17-16 along party lines, with four Republicans who rejected the bill the first time on Friday voting present Sunday: Ralph Norman of Oklagoa, Chip Roy of Texas, Andrew Clyde of Georgia and Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma. They voted against the bill Friday, preventing it from advancing then.

Roy said he voted present “out of respect for the Republican Conference and the president,” but doesn’t support the bill as it stands.

He posted on X: “The bill does not yet meet the moment — leaving almost half of the green new scam subsidies continuing. More, it fails to end the Medicaid money laundering scam and perverse funding structure that provides seven times more federal dollars for each dollar of state spending for the able-bodied relative to the vulnerable. This all ultimately increases the likelihood of continuing deficits and non-Obamacare-expansion states like Texas expanding in the future. We can and must do better before we pass the final product.”

He is looking forward to getting the bill way he wants it. “It gives us the opportunity to work together this week to get the job done in light of the fact our bond rating was dropped yet again due to historic fiscal mismanagement by both parties,” he wrote. “This bill is a strong step forward.”

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Ky., said he was pleased the bill advances.

“There’s a lot more work to do, we’ve always acknowledged that towards the end there will be more details to iron out, we have several more to take care of,” Johnson said. “But I’m looking forward to very thoughtful discussions, very productive discussions over the next few days, and I am absolutely convinced we’re going to get this in final form and pass it in accordance with our original deadline, and that was to do it before Memorial Day.

“So this will be a victory out of committee tonight, everybody will make a vote that allows us to proceed and that was my big request tonight.”

The bill for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, is 1,116 pages and is worth roughly $7 trillion. The last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time, before the start of a new fiscal year, was in 1996. Since then, Congress has relied heavily on continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills to fund the government.

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.8 trillion.

Before the meeting, Johnson said on Fox News Sunday he was optimistic the bill will past the House by the end of this week. Some Republican hardliners and moderates have opposed the bill along with all Democrats.

“We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible,” Johnson said. “All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have here.”

The bill next gets put before the Rules Committee with a 9-4 Republican majority including Norman and Roy. In the full House, Republicans have just a 220-213 advantage with two vacancies after two Democrats died.

“It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important,” Johnson said earlier Sunday. “This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.

“At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system.”

On Friday, Budget Committee hard-liners blocked the package from moving forward — mainly over when Medicaid work requirements will commence. Under the current legislation, Medicaid requirements will kick in during 2029. Some conservatives want it to start as soon as 2027.

Norman, who voted against advancing the bill, earlier told CNN on Saturday that the earlier date was necessary for his vote.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, according to the agency. That includes 71,275,237 enrolled in Medicaid and 7,257,104 in CHIPS.

“Some of the states have — it takes them some time,” Johnson said. “We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.”

If the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate. Johnson said he hopes the Senate won’t alter the bill, which means it goes back to the House.

“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.

Holdouts also want to accelerate the phasing out of tax credits for green energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The bill also includes a big increase for the Defense Department and to national security. There are cuts to federal health and nutrition programs and energy programs.

It’s a balancing act for Johnson because some changes may anger House moderates. They are phasing out the tax credits and cuts to Medicaid benefits. Trump has vowed not to cut Medicaid.

Some swing-district House Republicans want to raise the tax rate on top earners to offset the cost of lifting the cap on how much their constituents can deduct in their state and local taxes, known as SALT.

“Allowing the top tax rate to expire and returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning $609,350 or more and married couples earning $731,200 or more breathes $300 billion of new life into the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Rep. Nick LaLota of New York told CNN on Saturday.

May 18 (UPI) — The House Budget Committee has scheduled a rare Sunday night session in an attempt to advance President Donald Trump‘s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

The panel of 21 Republicans and 16 Democrats plans to convene at 10 p.m. Committee passage of the bill is necessary to put it on the floor for a vote later this week and before Memorial Day. Congress needs to pass the budget bill by July, mainly because of a deadline in mid-July to address the debt limit and avoid a default.

The bill for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, is 1,116 pages and roughly $7 trillion. The last time Congress passed all 12 regular appropriations bills on time, before the start of a new fiscal year, was in 1996. Since then, Congress has relied heavily on continuing resolutions and omnibus appropriations bills to fund the government.

In fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent $6.8 trillion.

House Speaker Mike Johnson said on Fox News Sunday that Republicans still are “on track” to pass the bill by the end of this week. Some Republican hardliners and moderates have opposed to the bill along with all Democrats.

“We’re on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation-shaping legislation for the American people as soon as possible,” Johnson said. “All 11 of our committees have wrapped up their work, and they spent less and saved more than even we’ve projected initially. This really is a once-in-a-generation opportunity that we have here.”

If the Budget Committee passes the bill, it goes before the Rules Committee. In the House, Republicans have a 220-213 majority with two vacancies after two Democrats died.

“It’s very important for people to understand why we’re being so aggressive on the timetable and why this really is so important,” Johnson said. “This is the vehicle through which we will deliver on the mandate the American people gave us during the last election. You’re going to have historic savings for the American people, historic tax relief for American workers, historic investments in border security.

“At the same time, we’re restoring American energy dominance, and we’re rebuilding the defense industrial base, and we’re ensuring that programs like Medicaid and SNAP are strengthened for U.S. citizens who need and deserve them and not being squandered away by illegal aliens and persons who are ineligible to receive them and are cheating the system.”

On Friday, Budget Committee hard-liners blocked the package from moving forward — mainly over when Medicaid work requirements will commence. Under the current legislation, Medicaid requirements will kick in during 2029. Some conservatives want it to start as soon as 2027.

South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman, who voted against advancing the bill, told CNN on Saturday that the earlier date was necessary for his vote. Another key budget holdouts are Chip Roy of Texas, Josh Brecheen of Oklahoma and Andrew Clyde of Georgia.

The Center on Budget and Policies Priorities estimates 36 million Medicaid enrollees could be at risk of losing coverage because of potential work requirements and other factors.

In December, there were 78,532,341 on Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, according to the agency. That includes 71,275,237 enrolled in Medicaid and 7,257,104 in CHIPS.

“Some of the states have — it takes them some time,” Johnson said. “We’ve learned in this process to change their systems and to make sure that these stringent requirements that we will put on that to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse, can actually be implemented. So, we’re working with them [hardliners] to make sure what the earliest possible date is to put into law something that will actually be useful. I think we’ve got to compromise on that. I think we’ll work it out,” Johnson claimed.”

If the House passes a bill, it goes to the Senate. Johnson said he hopes the Senate won’t alter the bill, which means it goes back to the House.

“The package that we send over there will be one that was very carefully negotiated and delicately balanced, and we hope that they [Senate] don’t make many modifications to it, because that will ensure its passage quickly,” he said.

Holdouts also want to accelerate the phasing out of tax credits for green energy projects under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The bill also includes a big increase for the Defense Department and to national security. There are cuts to federal health and nutrition programs and energy programs.

It’s a balancing act for Johnson because some changes may anger House moderates. They are phasing out the tax credits and cuts to Medicaid benefits. Trump has vowed not to cut Medicaid.

Someswing-district House Republicans want to raise the tax rate on top earners to offset the cost of lifting the cap on how much their constituents can deduct in their state and local taxes, known as SALT.

“Allowing the top tax rate to expire and returning from 37% to 39.6% for individuals earning $609,350 or more and married couples earning $731,200 or more breathes $300 billion of new life into the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Rep. Nick LaLota of New York told CNN on Saturday.

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton on Saturday, tarnishing his legacy by making him only the second president in the nation’s history ordered to stand trial in the Senate.

In approving two articles of impeachment largely along party lines, the Republican-controlled House alleged that Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury and obstructed justice as he sought to conceal his extramarital affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

But two other articles–charging Clinton with lying in a legal deposition in the Paula Corbin Jones sexual harassment case and abusing his presidential power–were voted down. In addition, a Democratic attempt to censure rather than impeach Clinton failed on a strict party-line vote.

And in a stunning symbol of the personal politics that has savaged a growing number of public officials at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, speaker-designate Bob Livingston (R-La.) shocked the packed House chamber by announcing that he will resign over the disclosure of his own adulterous affairs.

At the White House, the president urged Livingston to reconsider and, while impeachment votes were being cast, huddled in the Oval Office with one of the ministers he asked to provide spiritual guidance in his self-imposed penance for breaking his marriage vows.

With the outcome of a likely Senate trial uncertain, Livingston and other Republicans called on Clinton to resign, saying that it was the honorable thing for him to do.

Yet within hours of the votes for impeachment, the president appeared in a White House garden and–in a brace of solidarity with First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and scores of congressional Democrats–declared that he was determined to continue the work of his presidency “until the last hour of the last day of my term.”

Saying that he had accepted responsibility for his actions, he again invited lawmakers to censure him as punishment.

“I hope it will be embraced by the Senate,” he said. “I hope there will be a constitutional and fair means of resolving this matter in a prompt manner.”

The historic votes and successive episodes of high drama made for a political day like no other as the close of the American Century nears. It also came at the end of a year of unprecedented bitter political enmity, which gave way to only one moment of unity on the House floor when both sides rose to applaud a call for an end to “slash-and-burn-and-smear politics.”

It was from that chaotic environment that the case against Clinton was formally carried by Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), along with the other dozen GOP managers of the impeachment case, to Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco.

A Solemn, Rule-Bound Senate Trial Looms

There, unless a plea bargain or some other compromise is reached, the case that has consumed Washington for 11 months will be tried in a solemn, rule-bound procedure that was last used against a president 130 years ago. If two-thirds of the Senate finds Clinton guilty on even one of the articles, he will immediately be removed from office as 42nd president of the United States.

On other fronts Saturday:

* With Livingston announcing that he will not accept the speakership when the 106th Congress convenes in January, the scramble for the position, second in the line of succession to the presidency, began anew only six weeks after House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) decided to step down in the face of Republican losses in the midterm elections. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), a conservative, emerged quickly as the new GOP favorite.

* Before the debate resumed Saturday morning, the first lady arrived on Capitol Hill and met behind closed doors with House Democrats to thank them for their support and ask for fairness in their votes on impeachment.

* After the debate had quieted and the votes impeaching Clinton had been cast, many Democrats left the Capitol for the White House, some riding in a blue-and-white bus that rolled down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Then crowding around the president, first lady and Vice President Al Gore outside the Oval Office, they readily accepted the administration’s gratitude for fighting to keep Clinton in the White House.

* Immediately after adopting the articles, the House appointed 13 Republican lawmakers as managers to present the case before the Senate.

Led by Hyde, they include Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), who began calling for Clinton’s ouster long before the public ever heard the name Lewinsky, and Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale), a junior member of the Judiciary Committee who once served as a municipal judge. Also selected was Rep. Asa Hutchinson, who holds the Arkansas congressional seat that Clinton himself once sought.

* In California’s 52-member delegation, lawmakers heeded the party line on the first article against Clinton, with all 23 Republicans supporting impeachment and 28 Democrats opposed.

But there was some splitting among GOP lawmakers on subsequent articles as Rep. Tom Campbell of San Jose voted against Articles 2 and 4; Rep. Jay C. Kim of Diamond Bar opposed Articles 2, 3 and 4; and Reps. Frank Riggs of Windsor and Brian Bilbray of San Diego voted against Article 4. Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), recovering from hip surgery, did not vote.

* The 16 hours of debate over two days and Saturday’s votes came against the backdrop of U.S. and British strikes against Iraq. Saturday evening, Clinton announced an end to the four-night assault. But Saturday morning, the war still cast a shadow over the House chamber as lawmakers debated the future of the man who had ordered those attacks.

“Every single man and woman in Operation Desert Fox at this very moment is held to a higher standard than their commander in chief,” said Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). “Let us raise the standard of our American leader to the level of his troops. Let us once again respect the institution of the presidency.”

Although most observers expect Clinton to win acquittal in the Senate, the specter of a potentially long and lurid trial is so ominous that the White House, its Democratic allies and lawyers already have begun efforts to broker a bipartisan compromise to end the ouster process before Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H. Rehnquist gavels a trial to order.

Hyde Urges Colleagues to Send Stern Message

Hyde, who led the Clinton impeachment inquiry, urged his colleagues to send a stern message to all elected officials that they must support such basic constitutional precepts as telling the truth under oath.

“Equal justice under the law, that’s what we’re fighting for,” he said in a closing statement.

“And when the chief law enforcement officer trivializes, ignores, shreds, minimizes the sanctity of the oath and justice is wounded and you’re wounded and your children are wounded, follow your conscience and you will serve the country.”

On the opposite side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) argued that censure of the president is the proper course.

“America is held hostage to tactics of smear and fear,” he warned. “Let all of us here today say no to resignation, no to impeachment, no to intolerance of each other and no to vicious self-righteousness.”

But the politics of rancor are likely to carry over into the Senate, where the Republicans hold a 55-45 majority. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has said that he expects a flurry of pretrial motions early next month by the Clinton team. He said that it will be difficult to determine when the trial will begin.

“That time,” he said, “will depend greatly on the president and his lawyers.”

Meanwhile, he added, the Senate legal counsel will be presenting an explanation of historical background and current rules governing impeachment proceedings.

“The process,” Lott said, “is governed both by the Constitution and by our rules and precedents.”

In 1868, President Andrew Johnson escaped ouster on the thinness of a single Senate vote. In 1974, President Nixon resigned before the full House could vote on the three articles of impeachment voted against him by the Judiciary Committee.

The two articles approved by the House accuse Clinton of lying under oath during his appearance before a grand jury and obstructing justice in attempting to conceal his relationship with Lewinsky.

Article 1 says that Clinton “willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury” about his relationship with Lewinsky, his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and gifts the couple exchanged. It passed on a 228-206 vote, with five members from each side breaking party ranks.

While Clinton’s lawyers have admitted that the president may have been misleading in his testimony, they have bluntly denied that he intentionally lied.

Article 3 says that Clinton “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony.”

The White House has argued that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr twisted the facts against the president to make his actions appear incriminating, but the vote was 221 to 212, with 12 Republicans voting no and five Democrats voting yes.

Articles 2 and 4, which failed, accused Clinton of committing perjury in a deposition in the Jones case and abusing his power by submitting false statements in written responses to the Judiciary Committee. Article 2 was defeated, 229 to 205, and Article 4, 285 to 148.

Impeachment Grew All but Certain

Although impeachment appeared a long shot a month ago, it was all but certain when the bell rang for the first vote.

The corps of undecideds who held the president’s fate in its hands turned on the president in the end. Only five Republicans bucked their party’s leadership to oppose all four articles of impeachment. Just as many Democrats favored Clinton’s ouster.

Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi was the only Democrat to vote for all four articles. Four other Democrats joined him in voting for the first three articles: Reps. Virgil H. Goode Jr. of Virginia, Ralph M. Hall of Texas, Paul McHale of Pennsylvania and Charles W. Stenholm of Texas.

Saturday’s debate began after the obligatory Pledge of Allegiance, followed immediately by a loud and sustained “aawwwww” sound from Democrats who appeared to be making the sound of gagging.

It was clear that there would be no love lost on either side.

In stark contrast to the scene of Friday’s debate, almost every seat on the House floor was taken and the visitors’ and press galleries were filled to capacity. Lines of tourists and spectators snaked along the third-floor hallways.

Print reporters jammed the Speaker’s Lobby, just off the House floor, and on the sweeping East Lawn of the Capitol television correspondents jostled shoulder to shoulder for position in front of their camera crews.

Inside the House chamber, the first to rise in debate was Rogan. “The evidence is overwhelming; the question is elementary,” he said.

‘He Repeatedly Perjured Himself’

What this impeachment would be all about, he said, was Clinton’s initial intent to do anything he could to get out from under the Jones lawsuit.

“The president was obliged under his sacred oath faithfully to execute our nation’s laws,” Rogan said. “Yet he repeatedly perjured himself and obstructed justice, not for any noble purpose, but to crush a humble, lone woman’s right to be afforded access to the courts.”

Next to speak was Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). “The Republican process is cynical and it’s dangerous. It will be recorded that they stood on the wrong side of history.”

Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a Judiciary Committee member, evoked the name of Nixon and noted that the same panel had voted articles of impeachment against him during the Watergate scandal.

While President Nixon cheated the political system by trying to hide a political break-in, he said, Clinton subverted the country’s legal system.

“Let it be said that any president who cheats our institutions shall be impeached,” he said.

But it was Livingston’s remarks that set the House on fire.

Addressing the president, the speaker-nominee said that Clinton had “done great damage to the nation over this past year.”

“You have the power to terminate that damage and heal the wounds that you have created,” he thundered. “You, sir, may resign your post.”

Democrats Roar With Disapproval

To Livingston’s right, Democrats roared with disapproval. With Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) presiding in the speaker’s chair and pounding his gavel, Democrats screamed: “No, you resign! You resign!”

And then Livingston did just that, announcing that he would not run for speaker next month and would resign in six months from his seat of 11 years.

The room gasped. The Democrats were suddenly silent (although some would later rise to ask him to reconsider) and when Livingston offered one final “God bless America” in closing, politicians on both sides stood and applauded.

Other speakers followed. Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), who in his angst called a town meeting last week to help him decide how to vote, announced that he was for the president.

“We’ve all tried to do our best,” he said. “And we will all have to live with our votes the rest of our lives.”

Some spoke with fury.

Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), a former football star and rising voice in the GOP, spoke with emotion about how a vote to uphold the law was a vote for “our children.” In a pointed reference to the perjury allegations against Clinton, Watts said: “Ask your children. The kid who lies doesn’t last.”

Equally passionate was Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a veteran of the civil rights campaigns of the 1960s who asked for the two sides to come together.

He recalled a violent storm when he was a youngster in Alabama, huddled with his family inside their home.

“We never left the house,” he said. “The wind may blow, the thunder may roll, the lightning may flash, but we must never leave the American house. We must stay together as a family, one house, one family, the American house, the American family.”

When lawmakers had debated impeachment for a final two hours, they spent another hour discussing the Democrats’ censure alternative.

Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who in January will join the Senate, said: “The rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime. Allow us to vote for censure, the appropriate punishment under the rule of law.”

But Rep. Charles T. Canady (R-Fla.), who like Schumer sits on the Judiciary panel, rejected the proposal as unsuitable.

“The constitutional method is impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate,” he said. “Other methods may seem to us more convenient or more comfortable, but our standard cannot be comfort or convenience.”

The House voted, 230 to 204, on a procedural motion that defeated Democrats’ effort to censure.

Then came the votes on impeachment.

And with that, the lame-duck session of the 105th Congress adjourned.

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, Melissa Healy, Robert L. Jackson, Art Pine and Alissa J. Rubin contributed to this story.

Times on the Web: Video clips from Saturday’s impeachment proceedings, Times political writer Ronald Brownstein’s audio analysis and a complete list of House members’ votes are on The Times’ Web site: https://www.latimes.com/scandal

IMPEACHMENT

* Looking Ahead: The stage is set for a partisan struggle focused on the question of whether the president lied under oath. A48

* Legacy Stained: Clinton can claim other achievements, but history will remember him as the second president to be impeached. A48

* Reaction From Right: Conservatives avoid celebrating even though they see vindication of effort to cut short Clinton’s career. A45

* View from home: Weary Arkansans describe feeling a mixture of melancholy and disengagement over the historic vote. A47

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Next Step: The Senate

On Saturday, just after the historic vote to impeach President Clinton, the House appointed 13 managers who will act as prosecutors in the Senate trial.

The appointment is one of several traditions inherited from the British legal system under which the U.S. Senate has conducted impeachment trials since 1868. Here are some of the others:

The Proceedins:

* The Senators each take an oath as a juror.

* The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serves as judge and has the power to make and enforce rulings.

* The Senate has subpoena power. Witnesses are sworn in.

* The accused is advised of the charges against him, but the trial will proceed with or without his presence.

* One person on each side–the prosecution and the defense–makes an opening argument.

* Any witness called by one side must be cross-examined by the other side.

* Senators are not to talk during the trial. If a Senator wants to ask a question of a witness, the Senator must submit that question in writing to the chief justice.

* The Senate doors must remain open unless the Senators are deliberating.

* The vote for each article of impeachment is taken separately and without debate. During the deliberations, Senators may speak to each other within limited rules set down by the chief justice.

* Two-thirds vote (67) needed to remove president

*

The Senate

The political party makeup of the 106th Senate did not change from the previous Senate.

Republicans: 55

Democrats: 45

*

Newly elected senators

Republicans

Jim Bunning (Ky.)

Michael D. Crapo (Idaho)

Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.)

George Voinovich (Ohio)

*

Democrats

Evan Bayh (Ind.)

John Edwards (N.C.)

Blanche Lamber Lincoln (Ark.)

Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.)

*

Senators not returning in January

Republicans

Dan Coats (Ind.)

Alfonse M. D’Amato (N.Y.)

Lauch Faircloth (N.C.)

Dirk Kempthorne (Idaho)

*

Democrats

Dale Bumpers (Ark.)

Wendall H. Ford (Ky.)

John Glenn (Ohio)

Carol Moseley-Braun (Ill.)

Researched by TRICIA FORD / Los Angeles Times

DOWNIEVILLE, Calif. — Patrice Miller, 71, lived by herself in a small yellow house beneath towering mountain peaks on the edge of a burbling river in this Sierra County village. She doted on her cats and her exotic orchids, and was known to neighbors for her delicious homemade bread. One fall afternoon in 2023, after Miller had failed for several days to make her customary appearance at the town market, a store clerk asked authorities to check on her.

A short time later, a sheriff’s deputy found Miller’s lifeless body in her kitchen. Her right leg and left arm had been partially gnawed off. On the floor around her were the large paw prints of a bear.

Months after her death, officials would make a stunning disclosure, revealing that an autopsy had determined that Miller had likely been killed by the animal after it broke into her home. It marked the first known instance in California history of a fatal bear attack on a human.

But amid the contentious politics around black bears and other apex predators in California, not everyone accepts the official version of how she died.

“We don’t believe the bear did it,” said Ann Bryant, executive director of the Bear League in the Tahoe Basin. “And I will go on record as saying that. … We’ve never had a bear kill anybody.”

The story of Miller’s grisly end — and the increasingly heated battles around predators in California — have come roaring into the state Capitol this spring. Lawmakers representing conservative rural districts in the state’s rugged northern reaches argue that their communities are under attack, and point to Miller as one example of the worst that can happen. One solution they have pushed is changing the law to allow people to set packs of hunting dogs after bears to haze them. A similar measure has been floated — for now unsuccessfully — to ward off mountain lions considered a threat.

Wildlife conservation advocates are aghast. They say turning dogs on bears is barbaric and won’t make anyone safer. They contend the proposed laws don’t reflect a scientifically backed approach to managing wild populations but instead are pro-hunting bills dressed up in the guise of public safety. The real solution, they say, is for humans living near bears to learn to safely co-exist by not leaving out food or otherwise attracting them.

“These people are using [Miller’s death] to try to start hounding bears again,” said Bryant, who maintains that Miller, who was in poor health, must have died before the bear came into her home and devoured her. “She would roll in her grave if she knew that in her death people would create a situation where people were going to mistreat bears, because she loved bears.”

In a recent report, the Department of Fish and Wildlife estimates there are now 60,000 black bears roaming California and notes a marked increase in reports of human-bear conflicts.

(John Axtell / Nevada Department of Wildlife)

Founded in 1849, Downieville, population 300, is one of California’s oldest towns, and also one of its quaintest. Colorfully painted wooden buildings sit at the junction of two rivers, beneath majestic pines and mountain peaks.

Along with tourists, who flood in in the summer for rafting and mountain biking, the town also receives frequent visits from bears and mountain lions. More recently, wolves have arrived with deadly force, snatching domesticated cattle off the open pastures that stretch across the plains on the other side of the mountains east of town.

Miller wound up here about a decade ago, at the end of a rich, complicated life. She had worked in an oil refinery, and also as a contractor. She was a master gardener, expert at transplanting Japanese maples, according to her neighbor, Patty Hall. She was a voracious reader and a skilled pianist. But she also struggled with a variety of serious ailments and substance abuse, according to neighbors and officials.

Longtime residents in the area were used to the challenges of living among wild animals. But in the summer of 2023, Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher said he started getting an overwhelming number of calls about problem bears.

“We had three or four habituated bears that were constantly here in town,” said Fisher. “They had zero fear. I would say, almost daily, we were having to go out and chase these bears away, haze them.”

But bears have a sharp sense of smell, a long memory for food sources and an incredible sense of direction. If a tourist tosses them a pizza crust or the last bits of an ice cream cone, or leaves the lid off a trash can, they will return again and again, even if they are relocated miles away.

That summer, Fisher said, no matter what he did, the bears kept lumbering back into town. It was unlike anything he had experienced, he said, and he had grown up in Downieville. “A police car with an air horn or the siren, we would push the bear up out of the community. Fifteen minutes later, they were right back downtown,” he said.

Founded in 1849, Downieville, population 300, is one of California’s oldest towns and also one of its quaintest.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

And then there were the bears harassing Miller and her neighbors.

“There were three bears,” recalled Hall, who lives just up the hill from the home Miller rented. “Twice a night they would walk up and down our [porch] stairs. The Ring cameras were constantly going off.”

Fisher said some of Miller’s neighbors complained that she was part of the lure, because she was not disposing of her garbage properly. Some also alleged she was tossing food on her porch for her cats — and that the bears were coming for it. Miller’s daughter later told sheriff’s officials that bears were “constantly trying” to get into her house, and that “her mother had physically hit one” to keep it out. One particular bear, which Miller had nicknamed “Big Bastard,” was a frequent pest.

Fifty miles from Downieville, in the Lake Tahoe Basin, the Bear League was getting calls about Miller, too. The organization, which Bryant founded more than two decades ago, seeks to protect bears by helping residents coexist with them. This includes educating people about locking down their trash and helping to haze bears away from homes.

“We got calls [from her neighbors] that told us she had been feeding the bears, tossing food out to them, and let them come into her house,” Bryant said. She added that some thought, erroneously, that the Bear League was a government organization, and “maybe we had the ability to enforce the law” against feeding bears.

Hall, Miller’s friend, told The Times that Miller was not feeding bears. Still, the problems continued.

Eventually, officials with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife were called and told Miller she could sign a “depredation permit,” after which authorities could kill bears trying to get into her house. But Miller declined to do so, Fisher said.

In early November, Miller stopped showing up around town, prompting calls for a welfare check.

A little before 3 p.m. on Nov. 8, 2023, Deputy Malcolm Fadden approached Miller’s home, which was a short walk from the sheriff’s office. The security bars on the kitchen window had been ripped off. The window itself had been busted from the outside.

“I knocked on the door,” Fadden wrote in his report, but got no answer.

Patrice Miller was found dead in her rental cottage in November 2023. Bear advocates take issue with an autopsy report that said she probably was killed in a bear attack.

(Jessica Garrison / Los Angeles Times)

Through the window, he saw blood streaked across the living room floor. He took out his gun and burst into the house, where he was greeted by a giant pile of bear scat. He found Miller in the kitchen, her half-eaten body surrounded by food and garbage, which, Fadden wrote, had been “apparently scattered by bears.”

Fisher was horrified. Already frustrated at what he saw as the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s lackluster response to the escalating bear incursions that summer, now he wanted the bear that had fed on Miller to be trapped and killed.

He said the department told him that for the bear to be killed, “the person who lives at the house has to sign the [depredation] permit.” Fisher said he responded: “How many times do I have to tell you the person who lives at that house was eaten by the bear?”

This was the start of a long-running conflict between the sheriff and agency officials that would complicate the release of the autopsy findings about Miller’s death, and also convince Fisher that more aggressive steps were needed to protect his community.

Eventually, Fisher managed to get a depredation permit for the bear that had fed on Miller; his deputies tracked down her landlord, who as the homeowner could sign it. Wildlife officials set up a trap near Miller’s house, and in short order, a bear was caught.

But, according to Fisher, officials initially said it wasn’t the same bear. They said DNA tests showed that the bear who had eaten her was male, and the bear they had caught appeared to be female. They intended to release the bear, he said.

Fisher padlocked the cage, and threatened to call the media. In response, he said, wildlife officials sent a biologist, who determined the bear in the trap was male. It was shot that night.

At that point, few people, including Fisher, believed that the bear had actually killed Miller, as opposed to feeding on her after she died of natural causes. Though there are recorded instances of fatal black bear maulings in other U.S. states, they are rare, and there had been no reports of one in California. Fisher issued a news release saying that the death was under investigation, but that “it is believed that Patrice Miller passed away before a bear, possibly drawn by the scent or other factors, accessed the residence.”

After performing an autopsy, however, the pathologist on contract with Sierra County came to a different conclusion. She issued a report that found that Miller had “deep hemorrhage of the face and neck“ as well as “puncture injuries (consistent with claw ‘swipe’ or ‘slap’).” These injuries, she noted, were “characteristics more suggestive of a vital reaction by a living person.” In short: The pathologist found that Miller was probably killed by the bear.

Because of Fisher’s feud with Fish and Wildlife, that autopsy report, dated Jan. 4, 2024, wouldn’t become public for months.

Fisher said the state agency was refusing to provide him with copies of the DNA analysis of the bear that had been trapped in Miller’s yard. He wanted to see for himself that it matched the DNA evidence collected at her home, saying he hated the thought that a bear that had feasted on a person might still be roaming his town.

“I requested DNA from Fish and Wildlife, and they refused to provide it to me,” he said. “So I withheld the coroner’s report. We stopped talking.”

He said he verbally told department officials that the pathologist believed Miller had been killed by the bear — a seemingly noteworthy development. He said that officials responded: “I guess we’ll see when we get the report.”

In an email to The Times, state wildlife officials confirmed that Fisher had verbally shared the results of the autopsy report, but said they felt they needed to see the report to do their “due diligence before making an announcement about the first fatal bear attack in California.” The agency had sent an investigator to the scene after Miller’s death, who like Fisher and his deputies, thought the evidence suggested she had died of natural causes, said agency spokesperson Peter Tira.

By the time Fisher got the autopsy report, it was deep winter in the mountains, and bear activity decreased. Then came spring, and along with the blossoms, the bears came back to Downieville.

Bears were knocking over trash cans and breaking into cars. In May, residents on Main Street reported that a bear had broken into multiple houses, including one incursion that involved a bear standing over 82-year-old Dale Hunter as he napped on his couch.

A few days later, a bear tried to break into the cafeteria at Downieville High School while students were at school.

Fisher declared the bear a threat to public safety. Fish and Wildlife eventually issued a depredation permit, and the bear was shot.

That led to a story in the Mountain Messenger, the local paper. In it, the sheriff dropped a bombshell: “Miller was mauled to death after a black bear entered her home,” the paper reported. The story went on to say that the sheriff had made “numerous attempts” to inform Fish and Wildlife “about Miller’s death and more recent dangerous situations.”

After the story ran, state Sen. Megan Dahle, a Lassen County Republican who at the time served in the Assembly, set up a conciliatory meeting between Fish and Wildlife and Fisher. They have been meeting regularly ever since, Fisher said.

Fisher got his DNA results confirming that the bear trapped in Miller’s yard was the same bear that had eaten her. And Fish and Wildlife officials finally got a copy of the pathology report, which said Miller was probably alive when she encountered the bear.

The revelation made headlines around the state. “We’re in new territory,” Capt. Patrick Foy of Fish and Wildlife’s law enforcement division told the San Francisco Chronicle.

Bryant and other bear advocates found the release of such a significant finding so long after the fact confounding.

“I absolutely do not believe it,” Bryant said. If the bear had killed her, Bryant added, “the evidence should have been so clear, like immediately.”

“We don’t believe the bear did it,” Ann Bryant, executive director of the Bear League, says of Patrice Miller’s death. “We’ve never had a bear kill anybody.”

(Max Whittaker / For The Times)

The Downieville saga unfolded as bears seemed to be making news all over California.

To many, it seemed there were just many more bears encroaching on human settlements. A Fish and Wildlife report released last month estimated there are now 60,000 black bears roaming the Golden State, roughly triple the figure from 1998, the last time the department issued a bear management plan. That’s the highest population estimate for anywhere in the contiguous U.S., although the report also suggests that California’s bear population has been stable for the last decade.

In the Lake Tahoe area, where 50,000 people live year-round and tens of thousands more crowd in on busy tourist weekends, bears were breaking into houses and raiding refrigerators; they were bursting into ice cream shops and strolling along packed beaches.

State and local officials went into overdrive, trying to teach residents and tourists how to avoid attracting bears. The state set money aside for distribution of bear-proof trash cans and “unwelcome mats” that deliver a jolt of electricity if bears try to break into homes.

The Bear League will loan Tahoe Basin residents “unwelcome mats” that deliver a little jolt of electricity to bears if they try to break into homes.

(Max Whittaker / For The Times)

The Bear League stepped up its efforts. From a small office on Bryant’s property, the organization’s 24-hour hotline was ringing, and volunteers were rushing out with paintball guns to haze bears and to advise people on how to bear-proof their houses.

The tensions continued to escalate, nonetheless, between people who wanted to protect bears at all costs and those who wanted some problem bears trapped and relocated — or killed. In 2024, after a homeowner in the Tahoe area fatally shot a bear he said had broken into his home, many people were outraged that the Department of Fish and Wildlife declined to file charges.

Advocates also complained that the state has fallen behind in its efforts to help people and bears coexist. In recent years, the state had hired dedicated staff to help people in bear country, but the money ran out and some of those people were laid off, said Jennifer Fearing, a wildlife advocate and lobbyist.

“We have the tools to minimize human-wildlife conflict in California,” Fearing said. “We need the state to invest in using them.”

In Sierra County, the sheriff had come to a different conclusion. “We’ve swung the pendulum too far on the environmental side on these apex predators,” Fisher said.

Earlier this year, Fisher found common cause with newly elected GOP Assemblymember Heather Hadwick. “Mountain lions, bears and wolves are my biggest issue. I get calls every day about some kind of predator, which is crazy,” said Hadwick, who represents 11 northern counties.

In February, she introduced a bill, AB 1038, that would allow hunters to sic trained dogs on bears to chase them through the woods, but not kill them. While California has a legal hunting season for bears, it is strictly regulated; the use of hounds to aid the chase has been banned since 2013.

Hadwick argued that hounding bears would increase their fear of humans, which she said some are starting to lose: “We’re keeping them in the forest, where they belong.”

Bears have a long memory for food sources and an incredible sense of direction. If a tourist tosses them a pizza crust or leaves the lid off a trash can, they will return again and again.

(California Department of Fish and Wildlife)

Wildlife advocates showed up in force last month to oppose Hadwick’s bill in an Assembly committee hearing. Sending hounds after bears is cruel, they said. Plus, hounding bears in the woods would have no impact on the bears knocking over neighborhood trash cans and sneaking into ice cream stores.

Fisher testified in favor of the bill, and spoke of Miller’s death.

Lawmakers listened, some with stricken looks on their faces. But in a Legislature controlled by Democrats, Hadwick did not garner enough votes to send her bill on to the full Assembly; it became a two-year bill, meaning it could come back next year.

Fisher returned to Sierra County, where he has continued to advocate for locals to have more power to go after predators. The current situation, he said, is “out of control.”

NEW YORK — Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has agreed to pay a $329,794 fine to settle an ethics board’s complaint that he misspent public funds on his security detail during his brief, failed run for U.S. president.

The deal, announced Wednesday by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board, is the costliest repayment order in the ethics board’s history. But it allows de Blasio to avoid an even steeper penalty of $475,000 that was previously imposed, a reduction the board said came in light of the former mayor’s “financial situation.”

In exchange, de Blasio agreed to drop his appeal of the board’s finding. And for the first time, he admitted that he received written warning that his out-of-state security expenses could not legally be covered by city taxpayers.

“In contradiction of the written guidance I received from the Board, I did not reimburse the City for these expenses,” de Blasio wrote in the settlement, adding: “I made a mistake and I deeply regret it.”

The payments concern the $319,794.20 in travel-related expenses — including airfare, lodging, meals — that de Blasio’s security detail incurred while accompanying him on trips across the country during his presidential campaign in 2019. He will also pay a $10,000 fine.

The campaign elicited a mix of mockery and grousing by city residents, who accused the Democrat of abandoning his duties as second-term mayor for the national spotlight. It was suspended within four months.

Under the agreement, de Blasio must pay $100,000 immediately, followed by quarterly installments of nearly $15,000 for the next four years. If he misses a payment, he will be deemed in default and ordered to pay the full $475,000.

The funds will eventually make their way back into the city treasury, according to a spokesperson for the Conflicts of Interest Board.

An attorney for de Blasio, Andrew G. Celli Jr., declined to comment on the settlement.

De Blasio had previously argued that forcing him to cover the cost of his security detail’s travel violated his 1st Amendment rights by creating an “unequal burden” between wealthy candidates and career public servants.

Since leaving office in 2021, de Blasio has worked as a lecturer at multiple universities, most recently the University of Michigan, and delivered paid speeches in Italy.

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

May 14 (UPI) — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. defended proposed 2026 budget reductions during separate House and Senate committee budget hearings on Wednesday.

Kennedy started the morning by fielding questions from members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

Chairman Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., opened the hearing by acknowledging President Donald Trump‘s efforts to enforce the border and its effect on community health and safety.

“The president’s success in securing our border directly benefits public health by reducing the incoming flow of illicit drugs, like fentanyl, which has fallen by 54% since this time last year,” Aderholt said. “That’s no small thing.”

He also commended the Trump administration for reducing the number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border and said he wants to hear Kennedy’s ideas for reforming the Department of Health and Human Services and its sub-agencies.

‘Disastrous’ program funding reductions

Ranking Member Rep. Rose DeLauro, D-Conn., was less conciliatory and referred to the Trump administration’s budget request for the Department of Health and Human Services as “disastrous.”

DeLauro said the proposed budget would reduce funding for health programs by $33 billion.

The proposed HHS budget for the 2026 fiscal year is $93.8 billion, which is a 26.2% reduction from the current budget and includes funding reductions across most programs.

“I view it as a disgrace,” DeLauro said. “Under your budget proposal, Americans would die needless and preventable deaths.”

DeLauro cited funding cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and accused Kennedy and the Department of Government Efficiency Director Elon Musk of “eliminating entire divisions without consideration for what is being lost.”

The cuts “affect families and communities” and “are dangerous,” DeLauro said.

Kennedy said his goal is to make America healthy again by focusing on the “chronic disease epidemic.”

HHS also seeks to deliver more effective and efficient services for Americans who rely on Medicaid, Medicare and other programs while reducing costs for taxpayers, Kennedy said.

During the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee budget hearing Wednesday afternoon, Kennedy said states and localities can do a better job of responding to disasters at the state and local levels than the federal government.

He cited Florida’s success in handling hurricanes Helene and Milton last year, with no lives lost there, as an example and said the federal government should focus on national disasters.

Drug prices and healthcare as a human right

Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., asked Kennedy if he is willing to work to make drug prices in the United States the lowest in the world, to which Kennedy said he is.

Sanders then asked Kennedy if healthcare is a “human right.”

Kennedy said healthcare is not part of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and called it more of a philosophical matter.

Sanders responded by saying “every other country guarantees healthcare” as a right and said Americans don’t want the choice to be uninsured or not have the ability to see a doctor.

Kennedy said “Obamacare” is not working and he and President Trump want to enable everyone to be insured and have access to quality healthcare.

Sanders then cited proposed cuts to programs that serve middle-class and poor Americans and claimed they would end healthcare coverage for 13 million Americans.

Kennedy said the cuts only are for waste and denied they would affect coverage for Americans.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., followed Sanders and cited examples of wasteful programs that the proposed budget would eliminate.

They include a recent study on the effects of cocaine on lab rats and another study that showed about half of biological males who medically transition to female believe they can get pregnant, the senator said.

Gain-of-function research and COVID-19

Paul also said bipartisan support exists for better controlling gain-of-function research on Ebola, avian flu and other infectious diseases and the potential dangers they pose to Americans.

The senator cited a research study that would put Ebola in an aerosol as a potential biological weapon, which he said could be potentially very dangerous to the general public.

Paul asked Kennedy if HHS would be transparent in gain-of-function research regulations and protect Americans from potentially deadly outbreaks.

Kennedy said HHS would be “absolutely transparent” in regulating gain-of-function research and “bring the public in on the debate.”

He also said National Institutes of Health research “almost certainly” caused the COVID-19 pandemic through gain-of-function research.

Lack of access to critical care

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she opposes staffing reductions at the NIH and cited a constituent with stage-four cancer who recently was told her treatment would be delayed by four weeks due to staffing shortages.

Kennedy offered to intervene on that person’s behalf and ensure she receives needed care right away.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., accused Kennedy of “hiding information” from the American people and asked if he believes lead poisoning is a problem.

Kennedy said he thinks it’s a very serious problem, but Baldwin said “the entire lead-poisoning program staff has been fired.”

She asked if Kennedy intends to eliminate the program that helps communities address lead poisoning, which he said will not happen.

She also said HHS has provided about $1 billion less in Head Start program funding and asked why there are funding delays.

“There should not be any delays,” Kennedy said. “The funding is there.”

He suggested staffers who want to make the Trump administration look bad are slowing down disbursements for Head Start and similar programs.

The House and Senate hearings were held before a vote on a proposed 2026 federal government budget measure that Trump has referred to as “one big, beautiful bill.”

Protesters arrested for disrupting hearing

While the Senate hearing was underway, Ben & Jerry’s co-owner and co-founder Ben Cohen and six others were arrested for disrupting the hearing, Axios reported.

Cohen and the others were protesting the United States’ support of Israel in its war with Hamas in Gaza.

The protesters yelled, “RFK kills people with hate!” before Capitol Police escorted them from the room.

They were arrested and charged with crowding, obstructing proceedings or incommoding.

Some protesters also were charged with assaulting a police officer or resisting arrest, but Cohen was not among those so charged.

Halle Bailey secured a temporary restraining order Tuesday against rapper DDG, alleging that the father of their son Halo was abusive throughout their two-year relationship and has continued to behave badly since they broke up last year.

The “Little Mermaid” star, 25, and the rapper-blogger, 27, whose real name is Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr. split up in October, declaring at the time that they were “still best friends.” Son Halo was born in December 2023 after Bailey worked hard to keep her pregnancy off the radar.

“Throughout our relationship and continuing to date, Darryl has been and continues to be physically, verbally, emotionally, and financially abusive towards me,” she said in court documents reviewed by The Times. “I am seeking orders to protect myself and our son Halo from his ongoing abuse.”

The TRO was granted by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge. Bailey indicated in court documents that she was concerned for her safety and that of their son, Halo Saint Granberry, and asked that DDG be ordered to stay away from both of them. No advance notice was given to DDG because Bailey was afraid he would retaliate with violence or by taking Halo out of the area, the documents said.

DDG appeared to find out about the restraining order Tuesday in the middle of a profanity-laden livestream, prompting his co-streamers to decry what appeared to be a phone alert as fake news.

“That can’t even be real,” DDG said, staring at his phone.

He is temporarily prohibited from approaching Bailey and his son or contacting them through any means including electronic.

In her declaration, Bailey accused DDG of “badmouthing” her to his millions of fans on Twitch and YouTube whenever he “wants to cause upset.”

“He claims I am withholding our son and that I am with other men. As a result, I then receive threats and hate on social media. He seems to try to set up drama for his fans. He goes ‘live’ ranting about me and alleges that I am keeping Halo from him. This is false. I have requested a set schedule, which he refuses.”

She also said he frequently calls her “b—” and says she is “evil.” She also detailed one physical altercation from January of this year.

DDG went to Bailey’s house on Jan. 18, she said in the declaration, to pick up Halo. She said she asked DDG when he would return the child and alleged he wouldn’t give her an answer.

“The discussion continued as I walked with him outside to assist to put Halo into the car seat. I was buckling the baby into his seat and physically got into the back seat to adjust the car seat. I had left my front door open and was not even fully dressed as I was not even wearing shoes. Darryl kept repeating ‘Get out of my car, B—.’ Halo was crying.”

Bailey said she was nervous leaving the baby with her agitated ex and repeatedly pleaded with him to stop calling her a b—. Then the argument escalated, she said.

“The next thing I knew, things got physical between us. We fought each other, wrestling and tussling. At one point, Darryl was pulling my hair. He then slammed my face on the steering wheel, causing my tooth to get chipped. I then stopped fighting back as I was in a lot of pain,” Bailey wrote.

“I wanted to get out of the car with Halo but was now stuck. Darryl then said that since I would not leave the baby in the car, he would take me with them. He drove quickly towards his house. When we arrived at his house, I was crying and told his family what happened. I begged his family who were there to help me figure out a schedule with him. They said just leave Halo and go. I left hysterical. I had bruises over my arms and a chipped tooth.”

Bailey also detailed a violent incident on March 7 that ended up with her filing a police report. She and Halo were home sick with RSV when DDG came over to see his son, whom Bailey didn’t want to leave the house because of his illness. That angered DDG, she said, and he started yelling and calling her names.

“He then saw that the Ring camera was recording; he unplugged the Ring camera, opened the side door, and threw the Ring camera out of my home. I went outside to retrieve the Ring camera. He then locked me out of my house,” Bailey said in the declaration.

“I went around the back and came into the house through another entrance. I plugged the camera back in and called my family member for help. With her on the phone line, I repeatedly asked Darryl to please leave. I told him that he was being rude, and I was too sick to deal with him. He would not leave. When he realized that my family member was on the phone line, he became enraged. Around this same time, I noticed that he also saw the Ring camera was back on so he smashed the camera. I have this recorded and will bring the recording to the hearing.”

Halle Bailey and DDG, who share son Halo, broke up last October.

(Scott Garfitt / Invision / Associated Press)

She said DDG then grabbed her phone and hung up on her relative while she managed to get Halo away from him.

“Darryl then ran out of the house with my phone. I followed, begging to please give my phone back. He got into his car and closed the car door on me while I was holding Halo. Darryl then drove off and threw my phone out the window and yelled ‘GO GET IT B—.’ As a result of this incident, I filed a police report.”

Both parties have been ordered to participate in a May 30 mediation teleconference to determine custody or visitation if the two fail to come up with a plan before then using online court tools. A court hearing is scheduled for June 4.

In her Tuesday declaration, Bailey said that their relationship “ended in 2024 because of Darryl’s temper and lack of respect towards me. There have been numerous incidents of physical abuse, even before Halo was born.”

The document contains other alleged acts, including DDG declaring on social media that she was with another man on Mother’s Day. She said she was not, then mentioned that he had riled up his fans so that they accused her online of withholding the child and sleeping with other men. She also said DDG has never paid child support and she has never asked him to do so.

Bailey is also asking the court to allow her to take Halo to Italy for eight weeks while she is filming a movie.

“This is not child-centered,” she said of the conflicts between them, “and Halo is only being used to further his fan base and online presence.”

That’s a far cry from the rosy picture she painted in interviews while they were a couple.

Bailey and DDG first sparked romance rumors in January 2022, then made things red carpet official at the 2022 BET Awards that June. Speaking to Essence in August 2022, Bailey said she had been aware of DDG since 2015 from his YouTube channel. Their relationship began with private messages on social media, she said.

“I grew up being on YouTube and would always see the young Black creators and was constantly inspired by them,” she told the magazine. “He was one of them.”

When the magazine asked Bailey whether she was in love with DDG, she replied, “Yes. For sure I am.”

But shortly after the live-action version of “The Little Mermaid” premiered in May 2023, DDG released the song “Famous.”

In the explicit song, he raps, “Hardest things I did was fall in love with a famous b—.” If that wasn’t enough of a nod to his girlfriend, DDG’s lyrics also seemingly hint at Halle’s Ariel falling for co-star Jonah Hauer-King’s Prince Eric (“Filmin’ a movie now you kissing dudes”) and their time on the press tour (“Why is y’all holdin’ hands in the photo?”).

DDG, and his relationship with Bailey, quickly drew criticism online. One X user slammed DDG and his “embarrassing antics,” while another said “the whole song is the nastiest thing he could’ve done” to his girlfriend.

Amid the backlash, DDG said Halle heard the song, and said, “It’s just music.”

Bailey seemed to recover after that drama. “You know, you have puppy love experiences, you think that’s love,” she told Cosmopolitan in September 2023. “But this is my first deep, deep, real love.”

Times staff writers Carlos De Loera and Alexandra Del Rosario contributed to this post.

May 14 (UPI) — The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Republican tax package Wednesday, which followed an all-night hearing during which GOP members rejected attempts by Democrats to alter the plan.

The bill was approved on 26-19 party line, which will next move to the chamber’s Budget Committee, where it will be blended with legislation from other committees and presented as part of what President Donald Trump has dubbed the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill.”

“We are in hour 14 of a markup where Democrats are fighting tooth and nail,” posted Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R- Mo. to X at 4:29 a.m. EDT Wednesday,” which followed previous update posts at 2:37 a.m. EDT Wednesday and 11:56 p.m. EDT Tuesday. The hearing began at 2:30 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

Democrats saw all their proposed amendments, which covered items like the expansion of health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act, and green energy, turned down, while also having stumped against the current tax plan, which it called a giveaway to the wealthy.

Democrats also put forth amendments that would have impacted Trump’s tariffs, blocked tax cuts for high earners and expanded child-care incentives among other suggestions, but none were adopted.

The entire package is projected to cost $3.8 trillion, but could still address state and local tax, or SALT, deductions. The Joint Committee on Taxation reported Tuesday that average earners would see their tax bills decrease by double-digit percentages in 2027 under the plan as it stands.

Democrats have also pointed out that under the plan, taxpayers who earn over $500,000 would see a cumulative tax cut of around $170 billion in 2027, while those who will earn between $30,000 and $80,000 that year would only see a collective $59 billion.

The bill is targeted to pass through the enter chamber by Memorial Day, then on to the Senate which is expected to combine the tax laws with the rest of Trump’s “Beautiful” bill, which together would both extend the life of previously set tax cuts and enable Trump’s financial requests.