We all share life on this big blue rock, and we all share the space around it as well. So in order to get the most out of it from a business and defense aspect, the U.S. is going to need allies. So how are the relationships between the U.S. and strategic partners when it comes to space-related goals? The RAND Corporation was recently tasked with looking into that very topic. To learn more about what that research found, I got the chance to speak with Bruce McClintock, Senior Policy Researcher and lead of RAND’s Space Enterprise Initiative.

Interview Transcript: 

Bruce McClintock So in about the 2022-time frame. Lieutenant General Whiting and he was at the time was in Space Operations Command commander, a Beatles commander in United States Space Force, asked Rand to take a close look at how the US was currently cooperating with select allies on space operations matters and where they’re all ….. those relationships. So that was very active in the project in that time.

Eric White All right. And so, in looking through that, you know, what entities did you speak with, and how did you go about trying to find out those answers for them?

Bruce McClintock So we used a very rigorous approach where the project started off by. Well, throughout the course of the project, we conducted over 140 interviews with more than 115 people that represented 24 different organizations. And those organizations included representatives from select allied countries, NATO Space Center, …, Space Command headquarters, EUCOM headquarters, several Department of Air Force organizations all the way up to senior policy level. And then below, on top of those interviews, we actually conducted 13 different site visits, to include visits to the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, and then several U.S. military networks. In conjunction with all that, we then analyzed close to 200 different documents, ranging from U.S. policy documents to plans for space operations to country specific documents. So, it’s a pretty rigorous, very holistic approach to conducting the research for the project.

Eric White All right. And so, then the next question is what some of your findings were. So, let’s go through it. You did a lot of site visits. You talked to a lot of allies. When it comes to space and U.S. space policy, you know, what were some of the concerns that that you were hearing from counterparts in other governments?

Bruce McClintock So one of the most common things that we heard from counterparts in other governments are what they often euphemistically referred to as the gap, or the policy or practice gap, if you will. And what they mean by that is that the U.S. was often cited as being very much publicly committed to integrating allies in the space activities and operations. But at the end of the day, in many cases didn’t deliver at the level where it was stated publicly.

Eric White Were there any, you know, examples of this that you can give me that were brought up? And, you know, I don’t need you to go through the litany of, of any policy failures, but just an example of what they meant by that.

Bruce McClintock Sure. So, you know, one of the most frequent, especially in interviews with specific allies, one of the most frequent examples that we would encounter once the failure of the US in many cases to fully include exchange officers from other countries in space related discussions or activities. And I think it’s an important distinction here. In the U.S. parlance, there are two types of foreign officers involved in activities. There are liaison officers, which are officers that represent the interests of their country, but their liaison with the United States. So, it’ll be a representative of their foreign country that might be assigned to the US or another nation as a liaison. On the other hand, there are exchange officers which are intended to be a foreign national that are embedded in the US positions of filling US roles and responsibilities. And often what we heard was that means these allies will put into exchange ops or billets. And were told they were going to be doing a specific job in support of US national interests. Often weren’t given access to information that was necessary to perform the job that they were posted to. But that’s just one example. There were many others, but that’s not that was a very common.

Eric White Yeah. This comes down to you know, disclosure policies. I mean, the U.S. works in many arenas with its allies, whether it be, you know, on the waters or even in ground operations or anything like that. My question is, why is space such a vexing problem for when it comes to what information we can disclose to our allies and what we can’t? What exactly are the hurdles? Or, you know, is it just, you know, bureaucratic? Oh. I’m sorry. You know, you should have access to this, but you for some reason, don’t.

Bruce McClintock So I think it’s a combination of at the highest level and it’s just an evolution, based on information sharing between two different major departments in the U.S.. So that’s Department of Defense and intelligence community. At that very high level, even though their guidance flowed originally from the same executive order, they’ve both taken different approaches to that kind of process for information sharing. And then it does flow down because of that high level disconnect between those two organizations. It does flow down to lower levels, where there are essentially bureaucratic impediments that could be overcome, but there’s not necessarily motivation to overcome those impediments that exist.

Eric White Yeah. And what were some of the solutions that you all garnered? And then we can also get into some of the other, other aspects of this report. But as far as that solutions go. What is the idea there of, you know, making sure that everybody is at least on the same page when it comes to information sharing?

Bruce McClintock So one of the one of the very high-level things we recommended was that we thought there should be a deputy secretary defense level coordination effort with the ODNI. Obviously, director of National intelligence that really spanned that divide between DoD policies. And what is generally referred to as the ICC, the intelligence community policy on information sharing. And that that would be a very high-level effort, a working group if you will, that we thought would take a couple of years, but we thought we could be that high level because there are still disagreements within DoD components and uncertainty about their own internal DoD roles and responsibilities. So, because of those two aspects, we recommended a very high-level working group billet.

Eric White We’re talking here with, Bruce McClintock. He’s a senior policy researcher at the Rand Corporation and also the lead of the Rand Corporation Space Enterprise Initiative. So, let’s get a little bit more holistic here. What is the optimal amount of coordination that needs to happen between the U.S. government and its allies when it comes to space? What would be the ideal situation there?

Bruce McClintock I’d say before we get into the actual optimal level of involvement, I think the first step to the United States is just come up with a coherent holistic policy on involving our allies, and that doesn’t exist right now. That contributes somewhat to the capacity do gap problem. Some of the outstanding options, and one of the things that we would say more about holistic approach is it’s not every ally is going to be treated the same way. Right. So, this isn’t about opening the floodgates that we will and sharing everything with every ally. There needs to be a thoughtful approach to how much we’re going to share with people allies. But the US need to be clear upfront about mutual relationship levels so that that’s point one. I would note on that. Once you have decided on those different levels. And by the way, this is what this is a relationship that goes two ways. There are different allies that want different levels of interaction with the United States. Not every ally wants to be fully integrated with beyond states in terms of space operation. And that’s, of course, their national sovereign right. So, both sides need to be clear with each other. Once you establish those different relationship level expectations by ally, then you set up a U.S. structure that addresses those different levels. And the U.S. has made some progress in this area. Some of that starts with just basic information exchange and information sharing at the fully unclassified level. So, this is not always about having a very highly qualified conversation. That makes sense.

Eric White Yeah it does. And you know, not to be you know, two to our own horn or anything. We’ve got a pretty good space program especially you know; we’ve got the Space Force that now is doing its own thing. What exactly does the U.S. need or rely on its allies? You know, the major allies out there? You know, since their space programs may not be as advanced, what exactly are is the U.S. getting from these, allies in the space arena?

Bruce McClintock Two broad terms to describe what the advantages to working with allies, because the US don’t have a very robust, very strong space program when you speak about national security in general. But the first thing I would talk about is coverage of sector one, diversity. And there are other aspects that we could talk about later in life. So, the coverage thing, I think, is the one that is arguably the most important commercial quality, because space is not just about putting things on orbit, it’s also about being able to detect, characterize and track things that are on it. And that requires geographic locations across the globe. Right. So, we’ve been doing a little use of the parameter space power. Now we need geographic access to other territories to be able to improve our space situational awareness network and also our space domain awareness infrastructure. And the same is true for potential future adversaries like China. Like, so we’re out pursuing locations to be in the satellite tracking territory and not China. So that’s one very obvious example. It’s the information sharing like space situational awareness, which is the most fully developed program in the U.S.  The U.S. has a large number of agreements signed with other nations and other entities or SSA Galaxy. So that goes to the coverage piece. But there’s also value in diversity and space capabilities. Things like things that are on orbit but also ground stations become more vulnerable to threats. It’s good to have a diverse set of resources available.

Eric White Are there other areas. And you talked a little bit about it as far as intelligence sharing and coordinating with ODNI, are there other areas where the U.S. government works with its allies, you know, in other arenas that these space policy folks can draw from and see? Okay, so that’s how they do it. You know, maybe we can apply that idea when it comes to, coordination on the space end when you’re up, up higher a little bit.

Bruce McClintock So for our research, we took a pretty close look at a couple of other domains to draw lessons in best practices from those other domains. And the first area that we looked at in particular was nuclear weapons cooperation. For a couple of reasons. We thought that would be an interesting case. First of all, nuclear weapons will probably be most carefully guarded about capabilities, most sensitive, even more so than space capabilities. And so, we wanted to see if there was even any potential share at that level. And there was, in the mid-1950s, we had the United States had exceptional capabilities in that domain, but the Soviet Union was a threat to us. And so, the United States worked closely with the United Kingdom to come up with, neutral …. That were related to nuclear weapons. There was some level of data sharing between the United States and United Kingdom. And there was other, information exchange and coordination that, was important if you consider to be best practices. We also looked at, special operations, any newer area where there has been much touting about being able to cooperate with allies and share information in a way that hasn’t been demonstrated yet in inspection of it. So those are two areas that we looked at. Looked at the two others, two clearly are in charge and sharing opinions, see, and the three primary areas limiting jamming.

Eric White All right. And so yeah, there’s really nothing more that you can say about what’s at stake when you talk about nuclear weapons, but what’s at stake when it comes to space. And, you know, if we don’t get this right as far as working and we’re getting the most that we can out of these relationships with our allies in that domain.

Bruce McClintock I think it, I’ll start at the lowest level of what’s at stake. It’s just a reduction in efficiency. And by that, I mean, in some cases, if allies feel like they can’t depend on the US to share important national security related information about space, then these allies that have significantly more limited resources than the United States has, they feel obligated to invest in their own capabilities for things as simple as space situational awareness, which I talked about earlier, whereas we had a much more robust information sharing, relationship where it was maybe not fully reciprocal, but it share the pieces of information that they could invest, that those resources in other aspects of space security that could be to the benefit of the U.S. So that’s one example. It’s reduced efficiency if we just don’t cooperate as well with our closest allies. If you move up the scale in terms of the significance of the impact, the adverse impact. If we don’t, find ways to become allied by design. There are things like reduced trust and willingness to depend on the United States in times of crisis when it comes to space. So those are now obviously more extreme, but they are package, and I don’t feel like they could count on the United States to share information when the quote unquote chips are down. Then they sometimes say, well, we need to figure out ways to be not only independent but have our own capability. And then there’s less of a need for them to turn to the US on geopolitical policy decisions.

Eric White Wrapping up here, I’ll give you a chance to say anything else on this topic that you think is important for the conversation. But if you could run through also just, you know, some of the other recommendations that you all made, based on what you found in, you know, talking and also what did DoD have to say about this? I guess we could actually ask them and include them in this.

Bruce McClintock Yeah. So I would say as far as what the DoD has to say about this, first of all, you know, I applaud the Department of Defense, starting with, Gerald Whiting for taking an interest in this topic and asking somebody like Rand to look at it because they knew that they were going to get an independent, objective and rigorous analysis of the problem. That we weren’t going to just tell them what they wanted to hear. So not only by initiating process, but then listening to throughout the course of the last couple of years and they provided preliminary insights and recommendations on our final findings and recommendations. I want to applaud, you know, the Department of Defense for being so willing to listen, because it’s not always easy to listen to something that might be tough love. They’re not telling you exactly what you want to hear. And in that vein, I think over the last couple of years, the Department of Defense has taken on some of the recommendation, not all of them by any means, but that’s their prerogative. But they have done things like made expanded the interaction with allies in select venues. So, they have grown and see SPO initiatives that combined space operations in which, you know, that used to be seven nations, it now 10. They’re working on our international space cooperation strategy that was informed by this Rand research. And it’ll also want to applaud a recent announcement from OSD, where they signed a memo that removes a lot of the legacy classification barriers that have inhibited the United States’ ability to collaborate across the U.S. and with allies. Now, that’s a direct example of a recommendation we made, not necessarily because of the Rand report, but in line with the Rand report’s findings and recommendations that the department backs. So, there been great steps taken. There’s a lot more to be done.

Eric White Bruce McClintock is senior policy researcher and lead of the Space Enterprise Initiative at the Rand Corporation. There is indeed more to the interview. You can find it along with a link to the report at Federal News network.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. Coming up next. Governments aren’t the only ones joining forces to improve national security in space. Some commercial entities are as well. This is the space our on federal news network returning after this break I’m Eric White.

The post How well does the U.S. work with its allies when it comes to space? first appeared on Federal News Network.

The vote was 74-24. It came after funding had expired for the agencies at midnight, but the White House sent out a notice shortly after the deadline announcing the Office of Management and Budget had ceased shutdown preparations because there was a high degree of confidence that Congress would pass the legislation and the president would sign it on Saturday.

“Because obligations of federal funds are incurred and tracked on a daily basis, agencies will not shut down and may continue their normal operations,” the White House statement said.

Prospects for a short-term government shutdown had appeared to grow Friday evening after Republicans and Democrats battled over proposed amendments to the bill. Any successful amendments to the bill would have sent the legislation back to the House, which had already left town for a two-week recess.

But shortly before midnight Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a breakthrough.

“It’s been a very long and difficult day, but we have just reached an agreement to complete the job of funding the government,” Schumer said. “It is good for the country that we have reached this bipartisan deal. It wasn’t easy, but tonight our persistence has been worth it.”

While Congress has already approved money for Veterans Affairs, Interior, Agriculture and other agencies, the bill approved this week is much larger, providing funding for the Defense, Homeland Security and State departments and other aspects of general government.

The House passed the bill Friday morning by a vote of 286-134, narrowly gaining the two-thirds majority needed for approval. More than 70% of the money would go to defense.

The vote tally in the House reflected anger among Republicans over the content of the package and the speed with which it was brought to a vote. House Speaker Mike Johnson brought the measure to the floor even though a majority of Republicans ended up voting against it. He said afterward that the bill “represents the best achievable outcome in a divided government.”

In sign of the conservative frustration, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., initiated an effort to oust Johnson as the House began the vote but held off on further action until the House returns in two weeks. It’s the same tool that was used last year to remove the last Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy of California.

The vote breakdown showed 101 Republicans voting for the bill and 112 voting against it. Meanwhile, 185 Democrats voted for the bill and 22 against.

Rep. Kay Granger, the Republican chair of the House Appropriations Committee that helped draft the package, stepped down from that role after the vote. She said she would stay on the committee to provide advice and lead as a teacher for colleagues when needed.

Johnson broke up this fiscal year’s spending bills into two parts as House Republicans revolted against what has become an annual practice of asking them to vote for one massive, complex bill called an omnibus with little time to review it or face a shutdown. Johnson viewed that as a breakthrough, saying the two-part process was “an important step in breaking the omnibus muscle memory.”

Still, the latest package was clearly unpopular with most Republicans, who viewed it as containing too few of their policy priorities and as spending too much.

“The bottom line is that this is a complete and utter surrender,” said Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo.

It took lawmakers six months into the current fiscal year to get near the finish line on government funding, the process slowed by conservatives who pushed for more policy mandates and steeper spending cuts than a Democratic-led Senate or White House would consider. The impasse required several short-term, stopgap spending bills to keep agencies funded.

The first package of full-year spending bills, which funded the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture and the Interior, among others, cleared Congress two weeks ago with just hours to spare before funding expired for those agencies.

When combining the two packages, discretionary spending for the budget year will come to about $1.66 trillion. That does not include programs such as Social Security and Medicare, or financing the country’s rising debt.

To win over support from Republicans, Johnson touted some of the spending increases secured for about 8,000 more detention beds for migrants awaiting their immigration proceedings or removal from the country. That’s about a 24% increase from current levels. Also, GOP leadership highlighted more money to hire about 2,000 Border Patrol agents.

Democrats, meanwhile, are boasting of a $1 billion increase for Head Start programs and new child care centers for military families. They also played up a $120 million increase in funding for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s research.

“Make no mistake, we had to work under very difficult top-line numbers and fight off literally hundreds of extreme Republican poison pills from the House, not to mention some unthinkable cuts,” said Sen. Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Sen. Susan Collins, the top Republican on that committee, appealed to her GOP colleagues by stating that the bill’s spending on non-defense programs actually decreases even before accounting for inflation. She called the package “conservative” and “carefully drafted.”

“These bills are not big spending bills that are wildly out of scope,” Collins said.

The spending package largely tracks with an agreement that then-Speaker McCarthy worked out with the White House in May 2023, which restricted spending for two years and suspended the debt ceiling into January 2025 so the federal government could continue paying its bills.

Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told lawmakers that last year’s agreement, which became the Fiscal Responsibility Act, will save the federal government about $1 trillion over the coming decade.

___

Associated Press congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writers Farnoush Amiri and Chris Megerian contributed to this report.

The post Senate passes $1.2 trillion funding package in early morning vote, ending threat of partial shutdown first appeared on Federal News Network.

Democrats were able to swat back scores of policy mandates and some of the steeper budget cuts that House Republicans were seeking to impose on nondefense programs, though House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., highlighted some wins, including a nearly 24% increase in detention beds for migrants awaiting their immigration proceedings or removal from the country.

This year’s spending bills were divided into two packages. The first one cleared Congress two weeks ago, just hours before a shutdown deadline for the agencies funded through the bills.

Now Congress is focused on the second, larger package, which includes about $886 billion for the Defense Department, a more than 3% increase from last year’s levels. The 1,012-page bill also funds the departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Labor, and others.

“Congress must now race to pass this package before government funding runs out this Friday,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Nondefense spending will be relatively flat compared with the prior year, though some agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, are taking a hit, and many agencies will not see their budgets keep up with inflation.

When combining the two packages, discretionary spending for the budget year will come to about $1.66 trillion. That does not include programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and financing the country’s rising debt.

The House is expected to take the measure up first on Friday. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., urged Republicans to vote for the measure, noting that more than 70% of the spending goes to defense.

“At at time when the world’s on fire, more than ever, we need to make sure that we are properly funding our nation’s defense and supporting our troops,” Scalise said.

Then it would move to the Senate where senators would have to agree on taking it up expeditiously to avoid a partial shutdown. Usually, such agreements include votes on proposed amendments to the bill.

Johnson described the bill as a serious commitment to strengthening national defense while expanding support for those serving in the military. The bill provides for a 5.2% pay increase for service members.

In promoting the bill, Republicans cited several ways it would help Israel. Most notably, they highlighted a prohibition on funding through March 2025 for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which is the main supplier of food, water and shelter to civilians in Gaza.

Republicans are insisting on cutting off funding to the agency after Israel alleged that a dozen employees of the agency were involved in the attack that Hamas conducted in Israel on Oct. 7.

But the prohibition does concern some lawmakers because many relief agencies say there is no way to replace its ability to deliver the humanitarian assistance that the United States and others are trying to send to Gaza, where one-quarter of the 2.3 million residents are starving.

Democrats emphasized that humanitarian assistance will increase globally though, by about $336.4 million.

Sen. Patty Murray, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also highlighted a $1 billion increase for Head Start programs and new child care centers for military families. Democrats also played up a $120 million increase in funding for cancer research and a $100 million increase for Alzheimer’s research.

“We defeated outlandish cuts that would have been a gut punch for American families and our economy,” said Murray, D-Wash.

She also said Democrats successfully fought off numerous policy measures, known as riders, that House Republicans were seeking to add.

“From Day 1 of this process, I said there would be no extreme, far-right riders to restrict women’s reproductive freedoms — and there aren’t, she said.

Among the policy provisions that House Republicans did secure was a requirement that only allows for the American flag and “other official flags” to fly over U.S. diplomatic facilities. Under the Biden administration, U.S. embassies have been invited to fly the pride flag or light up with rainbow colors in support of the LGBTQ community.

There is also a provision that prevents the Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves. But the White House has said President Joe Biden would not support a ban, and the commission, an independent agency, says no such ban was in the works.

The spending in the bill largely tracks with an agreement that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy worked out with the White House in May 2023, which restricted spending for two years and suspended the debt ceiling into January 2025 so the federal government could continue paying its bills.

Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told lawmakers Thursday that last year’s agreement, which became the Fiscal Responsibility Act, will save taxpayers about $1 trillion over the coming decade.

McCarthy, R-Calif., was ousted from the speaker’s role a few months after securing the debt ceiling deal. Eight Republicans ended up joining with Democrats in removing McCarthy as speaker. And some of those unhappy with that deal also expressed misgivings about the latest package.

“I hope there will be some modest wins. Unfortunately, I don’t expect that we will get much in the way of significant policy wins based on past history and based on our unwillingness to use any kind of leverage to force policy wins, meaning a willingness to walk away and say no,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va.

Work on the spending bills has been more bipartisan in the Senate. Murray issued a joint statement after the bill’s release with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, urging colleagues to vote for it.

“There is zero need for a shutdown or chaos — and members of Congress should waste no time in passing these six bills, which will greatly benefit every state in America and reflect important priorities of many senators,” Murray and Collins said.

Johnson said that after the spending package passes, the House would next turn its attention to a bill that focuses on aiding Ukraine and Israel, though lawmakers are scheduled to be away from Washington for the next two weeks. The Senate has already approved a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, but Johnson has declined to bring that up for a vote.

The post Congress unveils $1.2 trillion plan to avert government shutdown and bring budget fight to a close first appeared on Federal News Network.

Six months into the fiscal year, Congress is about halfway home in passing spending measures expected to total about $1.65 trillion. Lawmakers passed the first portion of spending bills in early March, funding about 30% of the government. Now lawmakers are focused on the larger package, and in what has become routine, are brushing up against the deadline when federal funding expires.

Agreement had been reached on five of the six spending bills that make up the second package, but negotiators clashed over the measure that provides funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which is responsible for securing and managing U.S. borders, among other things. A person familiar with the negotiations but not authorized to discuss them publicly said late Monday that a deal had been reached on the Homeland Security spending. The breakthrough sets the stage for Congress to dodge a partial shutdown.

The stakes for both sides are immense as border security emerges as a central issue in the 2024 campaigns and the flow of migrants crossing the southern border far outpaces the capacity of the U.S. immigration system to deal with it.

Negotiators had been moving toward a simple solution: passing a continuing resolution that would mostly extend funding for the Department of Homeland Security, though with some increase from 2023 spending levels.

But a senior Republican aide said House Republicans pushed for more resources for the border than the continuing resolution would have provided. The White House also eventually rejected the continuing resolution approach but didn’t make that clear in communications with congressional allies until the “11th hour,” the aide said, increasing the risk of a short-term shutdown.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre on Monday declined to speak to timelines during the negotiations but emphasized that funding the government is lawmakers’ responsibility.

“It is their job to keep the government open,” she said.

Drilling down more specifically on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, she said the Biden administration has “maximized their operations” and removed more people in the past 10 months than during any year since fiscal year 2013. She said it was important to continue “that operational pace.”

“Obviously, we believe DHS needs additional funding. We’ve always said that,” Jean-Pierre said.

Even with the possible release of legislative text early this week, it’s unclear whether Congress can avoid a brief partial shutdown. House rules call for giving lawmakers 72 hours to review a bill before voting. House Speaker Mike Johnson will then likely have to bring the bill up through a streamlined process requiring two-thirds support to pass.

Most of the “no” votes are expected to come from Republicans, who have been critical of the overall spending levels as well as the lack of policy mandates sought by some conservatives, such as restricting abortion access, eliminating diversity and inclusion programs within federal agencies, and banning gender-affirming care.

Then, the Senate would act on the bill, but it would require all senators to agree on speeding up the process to get to a final vote before the midnight Friday deadline. Such agreements generally require Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to allow for votes on various amendments to the bill in return for an expedited final vote.

The package being finalized this week is expected to provide about $886 billion for the Pentagon. The bill will also fund the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and others.

Overall, the two spending packages provide about a 3% boost for defense, while keeping nondefense spending roughly flat with the year before. That’s in keeping with an agreement that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy worked out with the White House, which restricted spending for two years and suspended the debt ceiling into January 2025 so the federal government could continue paying its bills.

House Republicans have been determined to end the practice of packaging all 12 annual spending bills into one massive bill called an omnibus. They managed this time to break the spending bills into two parts.

___

Associated Press staff writer Chris Megerian contributed to this report.

The post Negotiators race to finish government funding bills after reaching deal on Homeland Security bill first appeared on Federal News Network.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, said that officials who use personal accounts to make official statements may not be free to delete comments about those statements or block critics altogether.

On the other hand, Barrett wrote, “State officials have private lives and their own constitutional rights.”

The court ruled in two cases involving lawsuits filed by people who were blocked after leaving critical comments on social media accounts belonging to school board members in Southern California and a city manager in Port Huron, Michigan, northeast of Detroit. They are similar to a case involving Trump and his decision to block critics from his personal account on Twitter, now known as X. The justices dismissed the case after Trump left office in January 2021.

The cases forced the court to deal with the competing free speech rights of public officials and their constituents, all in a rapidly evolving virtual world. They are among five social media cases on the court’s docket this term.

Appeals courts in San Francisco and Cincinnati had reached conflicting decisions about when personal accounts become official, and the high court did not embrace either ruling, returning the cases to the appeals courts to apply the standard the justices laid out Friday.

“When a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private,” Barrett said.

Officials must have the authority to speak on behalf of their governments and intend to use it for their posts to be regarded essentially as the government’s, Barrett wrote. In such cases, they have to allow criticism, or risk being sued, she wrote.

In one case, James Freed, who was appointed the Port Huron city manager in 2014, used the Facebook page he first created while in college to communicate with the public, as well as recount the details of daily life.

In 2020, a resident, Kevin Lindke, used the page to comment several times from three Facebook profiles, including criticism of the city’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Freed blocked all three accounts and deleted Lindke’s comments. Lindke sued, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Freed, noting that his Facebook page talked about his roles as “father, husband, and city manager.”

The other case involved two elected members of a California school board, the Poway Unified School District Board of Trustees. The members, Michelle O’Connor-Ratcliff and T.J. Zane, used their personal Facebook and Twitter accounts to communicate with the public. Two parents, Christopher and Kimberly Garnier, left critical comments and replies to posts on the board members’ accounts and were blocked. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the board members had violated the parents’ free speech rights by doing so. Zane no longer serves on the school board.

The court’s other social media cases have a more partisan flavor. The justices are evaluating Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express. The tech companies said the laws violate their First Amendment rights. The laws reflect a view among Republicans that the platforms disproportionately censor conservative viewpoints.

Next week, the court is hearing a challenge from Missouri and Louisiana to the Biden administration’s efforts to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security. The states argue that the Democratic administration has been unconstitutionally coercing the platforms into cracking down on conservative positions.

The cases decided Friday are O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 22-324, and Lindke v. Freed, 22-611.

The post Supreme Court rules public officials can sometimes be sued for blocking critics on social media first appeared on Federal News Network.

• Many, but not all, employees at the Education Department will soon have higher in-the-office work requirements. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona announced a new return-to-office policy of five days per two-week pay period. Up until now, teleworking feds had to report on-site four days per pay period. The change applies to all non-bargaining unit employees, supervisors, managers and executives at Education. The new policy takes effect April 22. Bargaining unit employees at Education won't see any changes, at least until union negotiations are complete.
  (A running list of agencies’ return-to-office plans - Federal News Network)
• After getting new requirements to try to improve relationships with their unions, agencies now have more guidance and a deadline. The Office of Personnel Management is offering more details on how to create a better relationship between managers and federal employees. Some of the more formative parts of that relationship can come from the use of labor-management forums. They are meant to be an opportunity for managers and employees to discuss solutions to workplace challenges, OPM says. An executive order earlier this month called on agencies to recreate the forums, after they were previously revoked during the Trump administration. In collaboration with their unions, agencies now have a six-month deadline to submit an implementation plan to OPM. It'll have to detail how they plan to establish and use labor-management forums moving forward.
  (Guidance on implementation of labor-management forums - Office of Personnel Management)
• Federal employees have a right to be whistleblowers, even under their agencies’ non-disclosure policies. Co-chairman of the Senate Whistleblower Protection Caucus Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is asking all 74 federal inspectors general to ensure their agencies have these “anti-gag” policies in place. Grassley says federal employees, by law, have a right to report fraud, waste, and abuse, to Congress and oversight bodies without retaliation, even if cases where it would otherwise be illegal to disclose that information.
  (Grassley calls on all 74 federal inspectors general to fortify whistleblower protections - Sen. Chuck Grassley)
• Postal unions and lawmakers rally behind a bipartisan bill that seeks harsher penalties for criminals who rob or attack letter carriers. The Protect Our Letter Carriers Act amends federal sentencing guidelines to treat the assault of a postal worker with the same severity as assaulting a police officer. It would also require the Justice Department to designate assistant U.S attorneys across the country to supervise the investigation and prosecution of postal crimes. More than 2,000 robberies and attempted robberies of letter carriers have happened since 2020. Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.) is leading the bill, and expects it’ll pass later this year. “This is a no-brainer. I can’t imagine anybody being opposed to it."
  (USPS unions, top House Democrat back bill setting harsher sentences for robbing letter carriers - Federal News Network )
• The Office of Management and Budget is taking two new steps to strengthen the domestic manufacturing supply chain. First, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Made in America Office issued a new memo letting agencies buy certain products using an enhanced price preference. OFPP says this benefit will help to better manage and mitigate supply chain risks for domestic products. Second, OMB issued a notice to industry from Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Veterans Affairs (VA) forecasting their need to buy personal protective equipment or PPEs. The buying agencies also are seeking feedback on a PPE white paper and will hold meetings with industry in the coming months to discuss their plans.
  (OFPP, Made in America Office to push for more domestic manufacturing - White House)
• Cara Abercrombie has officially assumed the role of assistant secretary of Defense for acquisition. In this role, she will be responsible for establishing policy and overseeing an acquisition system through which the Defense Department spends more than $500 billion every year. During her confirmation hearing, Abercrombie pledged to focus on increasing the speed of acquisition, reducing barriers for non-traditional suppliers and developing workforce. Prior to her appointment, she served as deputy assistant to the President and coordinator for defense policy and arms control on the National Security Council.
  (Abercrombie Sworn in as ASDA - Department of Defense)
• The Army lays out five pillars to reform how it buys, develops and manages software. Army CIO Leo Garciga calls the new software policy signed out by Secretary Christine Wormuth part of how the service is moving into phase two of its digital transformation strategy. Garciga says similar to what the Army did for cloud services three years ago, it's doing the same thing for software. The policy details five focus areas ranging from changing the way the Army writes requirements to emphasizing flexible acquisition approaches to adopting a software sustainment model. Garciga says the Army Contracting Command in Aberdeen, Maryland will help lead this effort as the software digital center of excellence.
  (Army to change the way it buys, manages software - Army)
• The Office of Strategic Capital has identified areas where it seeks to attract private capital. The office’s investment priorities, outlined in a recently released strategy, include quantum computing, autonomous systems, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and semiconductors. The office will work with the Small Business Administration to pair private capital with government-backed loans to increase investment in critical technology areas. The new strategy is part of the department-wide effort to bring in more private investment. The Pentagon is seeking $144 million for the Office of Strategic Capital in fiscal 2025.
  (Pentagon identifies technology priorities for private investment - Department of Defense)
• Some Department of Homeland Security components are looking to ramp up hiring in 2025. Customs and Border Protection wants $210 million to hire 350 new Border Patrol agents and hundreds more support staff in fiscal 2025. The budget wishlist comes as Congress has yet to finalize a 2024 appropriations bill for CBP and other DHS components. The Transportation Security Administration also wants to add a couple thousand more airport screening officers and other employees in 2025. TSA says it’s responding to a record increase in air travel, with the agency projecting a 9.2% increase in passenger volume over the next two years.
  (DHS budget request forecasts big hiring goals for CBP, TSA - Federal News Network )
• The Secret Service is warming up plans for one of the biggest sporting events in the world. The agency’s $3 billion proposed budget for 2025 includes $16 million to support planning for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The funds would be used to buy equipment and set up communications centers in the 11 U.S. cities where World Cup matches will take place. The Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security are typically involved in securing major national events ranging from presidential inaugurations to the Super Bowl.
  (DHS budget in brief - Department of Homeland Security)

The post Secret Service beginning prep to welcome soccer fans from all over the world first appeared on Federal News Network.

The new system, called Direct File, is a free online tool. Taxpayers in the selected states who have very simple W-2s and claim a standard deduction may be eligible to use it this tax season to file their federal income taxes. The program will also offer a Spanish version, which will be available starting at 1 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday.

“This is a milestone,” said IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel during a Tuesday press conference to announce the expanded availability of the program. Tax season officially began January 29 and the filing deadline is April 15.

“Direct File marks the first time you can electronically file a tax return directly with the IRS,” Werfel said. “And you can’t beat the price — its free.”

The Treasury Department estimates that one-third of all federal income tax returns filed could be prepared using Direct File and that 19 million taxpayers may be eligible to use the tool this tax season. So far, roughly 20,000 people have participated in the pilot program, according to the IRS, and expect participation to grow to 100,000 filers in the coming weeks.

Certain taxpayers in Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Arizona, Massachusetts, California and New York can participate. Direct File can only be used to file federal income taxes, taxpayers from states that require filing state taxes will need to do so separately.

“Direct File will offer millions of Americans a free and simple way to file their taxes, with no expensive and unnecessary filing fees and no upselling, putting hundreds of dollars back in the pocket of working families each year, consistent with President Biden’s pledge to lower costs,” said National Economic Advisor Lael Brainard.

Werfel said a component of the program that enhances filers’ usability is the live chat feature that allows taxpayers to interact with the IRS while they complete their taxes.

The Direct File pilot is part of the agency’s effort to build out a new government service that could replace some taxpayers’ use of commercial tax preparation software, such as TurboTax. It’s meant to be simple and provides a step-by-step walkthrough of easy-to-answer questions.

Derrick Plummer, a spokesman for Intuit, said in an email that Direct File “is not free tax preparation but a thinly veiled scheme that will cost billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for something already completely free of charge today.”

“This scheme will cost billions of taxpayer dollars and will be unnecessarily used to pay for something already completely free of charge today,” Plummer said.

Several organizations offer free online tax preparation assistance to taxpayers under certain income limits and fillable forms are available online on the IRS website, but the forms are complicated and taxpayers still have to calculate their tax liability.

When asked whether the Direct File program will likely be built out and available in the 2025 filing season, Werfel said: “I don’t want to prematurely reach a conclusion,” he said, but positive reports from users “have been encouraging.”

___

Hussein reported from Washington, D.C.

___

The Associated Press receives support from Charles Schwab Foundation for educational and explanatory reporting to improve financial literacy. The independent foundation is separate from Charles Schwab and Co. Inc. The AP is solely responsible for its journalism.

The post The IRS launches Direct File, a pilot program for free online tax filing available in 12 states first appeared on Federal News Network.

Lawmakers are negotiating a second package of six bills, including defense, in an effort to have all federal agencies fully funded before a March 22 deadline. In the end, total discretionary spending set by Congress is expected to come in at about $1.66 trillion for the full entire year.

A significant number of House Republicans have lined up in opposition to the spending packages, forcing House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to use an expedited process to bring the bill up for a vote. That process requires two-thirds of the House to vote for the measure for it to pass.

The House passed the measure by a vote of 339-85.

The nondefense spending in this year’s bills is relatively flat compared to the previous year. Supporters say that keeping that spending below the rate of inflation is tantamount to a cut, forcing agencies to be more frugal and focus manpower on top priorities. Johnson cited a 10% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency, a 7% cut to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and a 6% cut to the FBI.

But many Republican lawmakers were seeking much steeper cuts and more policy victories. The House Freedom Caucus, which contains dozens of the GOP’s most conservative members, urged Republicans to vote against the first spending package and oppose the second one being negotiated.

“Despite giving Democrats higher spending levels, the omnibus text released so far punts on nearly every single Republican policy priority,” the group said.

Johnson countered that House Republicans have just a two-vote majority in the House while Democrats control the Senate and White House.

“We have to be realistic about what we’re able to achieve,” Johnson said.

Democrats staved off most of the policy riders that House Republicans sought to include in the package. For example, they beat back an effort to block new rules that expand access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

Democrats also said the bill would fully fund a nutrition program for low-income women, infants and children, providing about $7 billion for what is known as the WIC program. That’s a $1 billion increase from the previous year.

As part of those negotiations, House Republicans pushed to give a few states the ability to disallow the purchase of non-nutritious food, such as sugary drinks and snacks, in the food stamp program known as SNAP. The GOP’s effort was unsuccessful for now, but supporters say they’ll try again in next year’s spending bills.

“The bill certainly doesn’t have everything that we may have wanted, but I am very proud to say we successfully defeated the vast majority of the extreme cuts and hundreds of harmful policy riders proposed by the House Republicans,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

House Republicans were able to achieve some policy wins, however. One provision, for example, will prevent the sale of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China. Another policy mandate prohibits the Justice Department from investigating parents who exercise free speech at local school board meetings.

Another provision strengthens gun rights for certain veterans.

Under current law, the Department of Veterans Affairs must send a beneficiary’s name to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System whenever a fiduciary is appointed to help manage someone’s benefits because they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs. This year’s spending package prohibits the department from transmitting that information unless a relevant judicial authority rules that the beneficiary is a danger to himself or herself, or others.

Rep. Mark Takano, the top Democrat on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said a finding of mental incompetency by the VA is typically based on “very serious mental health conditions like schizophrenia and dementia.”

“They wanted so badly to make sure that vulnerable veterans could access more firearms,” Takano said. “This is wrong. Lives are on the line. Veterans’ lives are on the line, and I will not agree to legislation that will cause more people’s lives to be lost to gun violence.”

Republicans have argued that current VA policy deters some veterans from seeking the care and benefits they have earned.

In a closed-door meeting with the House GOP, Johnson, looking to show that Republicans did get some policy wins in the negotiations, read from a news report about how Democrats were having “heartburn” about the gun provision, according to a Republican familiar with the discussion who was not authorized to discuss it publicly.

The bills to fund federal agencies are more than five months past due with the budget year beginning Oct. 1. House Republicans are describing an improved process nevertheless, saying they have broken the cycle of passing all the spending bills in one massive package that lawmakers have little time to study before being asked to vote on it or risk a government shutdown.

But critics of the bill, such as Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., were dismissive about how much the process really changed.

The first package covers the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Interior and Transportation, among others.

Democrats overwhelmingly supported the bill, with 207 voting for it and two voting against. The vote among Republicans was 132-83.

“Once again, Democrats protected the American people and delivered the overwhelming majority of votes necessary to get things done,” House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said.

Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., said he opposed the bill because “I’ve not made any bones about it since I’ve been here. We have to get spending under control and we’ve lost the leverage.”

____

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

The post House passes $460 billion package of spending bills. Senate expected to act before shutdown deadline first appeared on Federal News Network.

The short-term extension is the fourth in recent months, and many lawmakers expect it to be the last for the current fiscal year. House Speaker Mike Johnson said negotiators had completed six of the annual spending bills that fund federal agencies and had “almost final agreement on the others.”

“We’ll get the job done,” Johnson said as he exited a closed-door meeting with Republican colleagues.

The House acted first Thursday. The vote to approve the extension was 320-99. It easily cleared the two-thirds majority needed for passage. Democrats overwhelmingly voted to avert a partial shutdown. But the vote was much more divided with Republicans, 113 in support and 97 against.

The Senate then took up the bill and approved it during an evening vote of 77-13.

“When we pass this bill, we will have, thank God, avoided a shutdown with all its harmful effects on the American people,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said moments before the vote.

Biden called Thursday night’s vote “good news for the American people” but added, “I want to be clear: this is a short-term fix — not a long-term solution.”

Next week, the House and Senate are expected to take up a package of six spending bills and get them to the president before March 8. Then, lawmakers would work to fund the rest of the government by the new March 22 deadline.

At the end of the process, Congress is expected to have approved more than $1.6 trillion in spending for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. That amount is roughly in line with the previous fiscal year and is what former Speaker Kevin McCarthy negotiated with the White House last year before eight disgruntled Republican lawmakers joined with Democrats a few months later and voted to oust him from the position.

Some of the House’s most conservative members wanted deeper cuts for non-defense programs than that agreement allowed through its spending caps. They also sought an array of policy changes that Democrats opposed. They were hoping the prospect of a shutdown could leverage more concessions.

“Last I checked, the Republicans actually have a majority in the House of Representatives, but you wouldn’t know it if you looked at our checkbook because we are all too willing to continue the policy choices of Joe Biden and the spending levels of Nancy Pelosi,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

But Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, R-Tenn., countered before the vote that shutdowns are damaging and encouraged lawmakers to vote for the short-term extension.

“I want the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, that this negotiation has been difficult, but to close the government down at a time like this would hurt people who should not be hurt,” Fleischmann said.

The split within the GOP conference on spending and their tiny House majority bogged down the efforts to get the bills passed on a timely basis. With the Senate also struggling to complete work on all 12 appropriations bills, lawmakers have resorted to a series of short-term measures to keep the government funded.

Republican leadership said that the broader funding legislation being teed up for votes in March would lead to spending cuts for many nondefense agencies. By dividing the spending bill up into chunks, they are hoping to avoid an omnibus bill — a massive, all-encompassing bill that lawmakers generally had little time to digest or understand before voting on it. Republicans vowed there would be no omnibus this time.

“When you take away Defense and Veterans Affairs, the rest of the agencies are going to be seeing spending cuts in many cases,” said House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La. “There are also some policy changes that we pushed through the House that will be in the final product. Of course, some of those are still being negotiated.”

The temporary extension funds the departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Interior and others through March 8. It funds the Pentagon, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and the State Department through March 22.

While congressional leaders have said they’ve reached final agreement on what will be in the first package of spending bills voted on next week, there’s still room for an impasse on the second package to be voted on later in the month.

“We are working in a divided government. That means to get anything done, we have to work together, in good faith to reach reasonable outcomes,” said Sen. Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The renewed focus on this year’s spending bills doesn’t include the separate, $95.3 billion aid package that the Senate approved for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan earlier this month, with much of that money being spent in the U.S. to replenish America’s military arsenal. The bill also contained about $9 billion in humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, Ukraine and other war zones.

In his statement Thursday, Biden said, “It is time for House Republicans to put our national security first and move with urgency to get this bipartisan bill to my desk.”

Biden had summoned congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday, during which he and others urged Johnson to also move forward with the aid package. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the U.S. can’t afford to wait months to provide more military assistance to Ukraine, which is running short of the arms and ammunition necessary to repel Russia’s military invasion.

“We’ve got a lot of priorities before us, but we have to get the government funded and secure our border and then we’ll address everything else,” Johnson told reporters upon exiting his meeting with GOP colleagues.

Democrats urged quicker action on Ukraine as the temporary spending bill was debated.

“Without swift action, the legacy of this Congress will be the destruction of Ukraine, the appeasement of a dictator, and the abandonment of starving children and ailing families,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

The post Congress approves short-term extension to avoid shutdown, buy more time for final spending agreement first appeared on Federal News Network.

Under the new plan, Congress would temporarily fund one set of federal agencies through March 8 and another set through March 22. In the meantime, Congress will try to draft and pass packages of legislation to fund the government for the remainder of the budget year.

But there was no immediate plan to approve the $95 billion emergency national security funds for Ukraine, Israel and other allies.

“We are in agreement that Congress must work in a bipartisan manner to fund our government,” said the joint statement from House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, along with the Appropriation Committee leaders.

Johnson said the House would vote Thursday to approve the temporary funds — ahead of Friday’s deadline, when some federal monies run out. The Senate would be expected to vote next.

The deal comes together as negotiators in Congress have been working furiously to finish up a federal spending plan and Washington joined Ukraine and other American allies around the world in watching and waiting for Johnson’s next move.

The new Republican leader is facing the test of his career trying to keep the U.S. government open by Friday’s midnight deadline for several federal departments. At the same time, emergency funding for Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific allies remains stubbornly stalled. President Joe Biden convened leaders Tuesday in hopes of pushing them toward a deal.

“As the President and Congressional Leaders made clear at yesterday’s meeting, we cannot allow a government shutdown,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. She said the agreement reached would help prevent a “needless” federal shutdown.

Congress is in what has become a familiar cycle of threatened shutdowns and disruptions as hard-right Republicans in Johnson’s majority strive for steeper spending reductions than Democrats and even some other Republicans are willing to accept. This would be the fourth short-term funding extension in about five months.

While Johnson, R-La., inherited a difficult dynamic, it was only compounded after his majority shrunk further when Democrat Tom Suozzi of New York was sworn in Wednesday to boisterous applause from Democrats and visitors in the galleries following the special election to replace ousted GOP Rep. George Santos. The House is split 213-219, leaving Johnson no room for dissent.

Congressional leaders said they reached an agreement on six bills that will adhere to spending levels previously agreed to last year.

Those bills involve Veterans Affairs and the departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Interior and others and will be voted on and enacted before March 8.

The remaining six bills for the Pentagon, Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and the State Department still need to be finalized, voted on and enacted before March 22.

Leaders said a short-term extension would be voted on this week so that funding would continue for agencies while lawmakers worked on the two packages. Lawmakers would be given 72 hours to review the broader legislative packages, as is expected under House rules.

If the deal and the subsequent bills are approved, it would keep the federal government funded until the end of the budget year, on Sept. 30, and avoid more short-term measures.

Top military officials said at a Pentagon briefing that the delay in passing a 2024 budget has affected the military as it has responded to crises over the past several months without additional new money to do so.

Gabe Camarillo, the Army undersecretary, said that with continued funding delays, “we have some very significant costs that we’re going to have to overcome.”

Meanwhile, Western allies are keeping close tabs on Johnson to see whether he will consider Biden’s request for $95 billion in emergency funds for Ukraine and the overseas national security needs.

The Senate overwhelmingly approved the $95 billion supplemental request earlier this month that includes $60 billion for Ukraine as its military runs short of munitions to fight Russian President Vladimir Putin. About half the Ukraine money would boost U.S. defense manufacturing as part of the war effort.

Biden hosted Schumer, Johnson, McConnell, R-Ky., and Jeffries, D-N.Y., in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Vice President Kamala Harris.

The meeting was something of a pile-on as Johnson, who has endorsed Donald Trump in the Republican presidential race, was the only leader reluctant to help Ukraine as prioritizes a U.S.-Mexico border security deal despite rejecting an earlier proposal that collapsed. Biden pulled Johnson aside for a private conversation.

Biden told the lawmakers, “it’s Congress responsibility to fund the government.”

Without funding by Friday thousands of government employees could be furloughed and federal government offices and services temporarily shuttered or unavailable.

Biden warned that a government shutdown would damage the economy “significantly. We need a bipartisan solution.”

—-

Associated Press writers Tara Copp, Seung Min Kim and Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report.

The post Congressional leaders reach a tentative deal to avoid government shutdown. But Ukraine aid stalls first appeared on Federal News Network.

Biden called the leaders to the White House in hopes of making progress against a legislative logjam on Capitol Hill that has major ramifications not just for the U.S. but for the world as Ukraine struggles to repel Russia’s invasion with weapons and ammunition starting to run short.

“The need is urgent,” Biden said of the Ukraine aid. “The consequences of inaction every day in Ukraine are dire.”

Biden hosted Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., in the Oval Office along with Republican House Speaker Johnson and Vice President Kamala Harris. After the more than hour-long meeting, Biden pulled Johnson aside for a private conversation.

Democratic leaders upon exiting the meeting were blunt about the dangers Ukraine is facing.

“We said to the speaker, ‘get it done,” said Schumer. “I said I’ve been around here a long time, it’s maybe four or five times that history is looking over your shoulder and if you don’t do the right thing, whatever the immediate politics are, you will regret it.

Referring to Johnson, he said, “Really, it’s in his hands. It’s in his hands.”

Schumer, who was joined by Jeffries in describing how the meeting went, called the session “one of the most intense I’ve ever encountered” in the Oval Office.

Johnson spoke to reporters on his own, without Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell by his side. McConnell voted for a $95 billion foreign aid bill earlier this month that would aid Ukraine and Israel, replenish U.S. defense systems and provide humanitarian assistance for Gaza and the West Bank, Ukraine and other populations caught in conflict zones. The bill passed the Senate 70-29, but the Republican-led House has not acted on it, despite pleas from McConnell and others for action.

Johnson, who rejected a U.S. Mexico border security compromise that was eventually stripped from the final product, signaled no change in his position on Ukraine aid. He said the Senate’s package “does nothing” to secure the U.S.-Mexico border, the GOP’s demand in return for helping Ukraine.

“The first priority of the country is our border, and making it secure,” Johnson said.

The speaker’s continued call for border changes has frustrated senators, who spent months negotiating a bipartisan border deal only to have House Republicans reject it at the urging of former President Donald Trump. The bill would have denied migrants the ability to apply for asylum at the border if the number of daily crossings became unmanageable for authorities, among other major changes.

“It’s time for action” Johnson said of the border. “It is a catastrophe, and it must stop.”

Schumer said Democrats, too, want to tackle the problems at the U.S-Mexico border, but that it will take time and “we have to do Ukraine right now.” He said he discussed during the meeting his visit last week to Ukraine with other lawmakers and recounted the agonizing stories told by soldiers who have no ammunition left to fire.

In the meeting, “we made it clear how vital this was to the United States. This was so, so important, and that we couldn’t afford to wait a month or two months or three months, because we would in all likelihood lose the war, NATO would be fractured at best, allies would turn away from the United States, and the boldest leaders, the boldest autocrats of the world … would be emboldened,” he said.

Central Intelligence Agency Director Bill Burns also joined Tuesday’s meeting. Burns has played key roles coordinating the U.S. response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as well as efforts to secure the release of hostages held by Hamas after its Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

McConnell upon returning from the meeting called on the House to take up the Senate-passed bill. Many supporters of the bill predict that it would pass overwhelmingly on the House floor if Johnson were to bring it up for a vote, but doing so would risk enormous blowback from some in his conference who don’t support any more help for Ukraine. Some have even threatened his job if he allows the bill to pass.

“We don’t want the Russians to win in Ukraine and so we have a time problem here. And the best way to move quickly and get the bill to the president would be for the House to take up the Senate bill,” McConnell said.

Apart from the national security package, government funding for agriculture, transportation, military construction and some veterans’ services expires Friday. And funding for the rest of the government, including the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, expires a week later, on March 8, the day after Biden is set to deliver his State of the Union address.

“It’s Congress responsibility to fund the government,” Biden said. “A government shutdown would damage the economy significantly. We need a bipartisan solution.”

The congressional leaders seemed more hopeful that they would be able to prevent any shutdown, though it may require another short-term extension to be passed this week.

“We are making real progress on the appropriations bills that are scheduled to lapse on March 1,” Jeffries said. “And I’m cautiously optimistic that we can do what is necessary within the next day or so to close down these bills and avoid a government shutdown.”

“We believe that we can get to agreement on these issues and prevent a government shutdown. And that’s our first responsibility,” Johnson said.

——

Associated Press reporters Stephen Groves and Will Weissert contributed.

The post Biden and party leaders implore Speaker Johnson to help Ukraine in ‘intense’ Oval Office meeting first appeared on Federal News Network.

Whether you know it or not, the U.S. is definitely in a new space race. The destination is the same, but the purpose is a little different. Russia. China and the states are looking to get back to the moon first to attempt to harvest the potential water located there. But that’s just one aspect of current affairs. To get a clearer picture, Federal News Network’s Eric White spoke with Ellis Brazeal and Brett Richards, both of whom are legal professionals within the space industry for the firm Jones Walker.

Interview Transcript:  

Ellis Brazeal I think you need to go back to the parties themselves, do the countries themselves consider that they’re in a space race? Well, if you go back to March of 2019, Vice President Pence came to Huntsville to the Marshall Space Flight Center. And he declared, you know, back when he was president of the National Space Council, which had been reinstituted under President Trump. And he came to Marshall, and he said, we’re going back to the moon. We’re going to have human boots on the moon by 2024. Well, let there be no mistake. They were in a race because one month later, the Chinese came out, the Chinese space agency came out and said, you know, we were going to the moon by the late 2030s. We’re now moving that up in about ten years. So, I think China is now saying that they’re going to be at the moon, and we’re both going to the South Pole, to the Shackleton crater. They believe that they’ll be there by 2030. And so, you know, are we going to get there before or not? I don’t know. Hopefully.

Eric White All right. And so, Brett the race is on, and you know, are you picking up what Ellis is putting down and you kind of see the same thing as, you know, that’s the finish line where things are heading towards right now?

Brett Richards Well, I mean, I think it’s always good to remember perceptions, reality of these things. Right? And so, while we are in a space race, do the American people actually know that. Right? If you went out and pulled ten guys off the street or went out street, right, would they know that we’re in a space race? I’m not so sure that we do. And so, I think that, you know, a good first step in my mind is to get Congress involved a little bit more, right? I mean, I’m a Capitol Hill guy. That’s what we talked about. And so, you know, currently there’s like about a handful of legislators who are really sort of driving space policy. Right. And that’s great. And they’re really good and committed and smart and know what they’re talking about. But that’s not the American public. And to get anything past, you know, any sort of policy moving forward, it’s going to take a buy in from everybody.

Eric White Yeah Ellis, this space race doesn’t seem to have, and I wasn’t around back then, so forgive me for my ignorance. Doesn’t seem as if it has the same sort of stakes involved as the last one. What does a win look like to you? As Brett was just laying out, you know what he sees.

Ellis Brazeal Brett’s exactly on point about that. I mean, would the average person on the street think they were in a space race with China. Yeah, very few, presumably. And I was alive during the 60s. I was 8 when we set on the moon. And Kennedy is one of my favorite presidents because of his foresight in you know, going to the moon. And he did it because, you know, back in that period in time. Well, you know, Kennedy said we’re engaged in this tectonic struggle between the East and the West, between communism and anti-communism. And he wanted countries that were choosing whether to go with, you know, the democracy, style of government or communist form of government. Who were they going to ally with? He wanted to demonstrate our technological superiority. I don’t think we have that going on here. Well, and it was a matter of national pride, like Brett pointed out. I mean, that is huge for the American people. The thing about the Chinese space race is twofold. One it’s economic. So, the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs predicts that by 2050, there will be $3 trillion in global revenues from a space-based economy. Now, that doesn’t just involve what we do on the moon, which is going to involve excavation of minerals that may have value back on Earth. That $3 trillion also includes, you know, space, space power and things like that. But space and who dominates space could really have significant economic considerations for our country going forward. And secondly, both from an economic standpoint and then from a military standpoint, it will have security ramifications for our country, national security ramifications. And a good friend that retired from NASA who said, you know, there’s the old adage of the person with the high territory, the high land, has the benefit in any sort of military engagement. And he said, what’s higher than territory on the moon? So, I think from an economic, and then from a national security standpoint, it matters that to Brett’s point and to your point Eric, I don’t think that case it’s really been made to the American public.

Eric White All right. So, let’s revert it back to DC. And Brett, I’ll tap into your brain for this one. What can you know both branches of government involved in this both the legislative and executive branches, what can they do around to ensure that the US is best suited for this space race, even though it seems as if we may not be fully in one?

Brett Richards Well, I mean, I think that we are in one, right? And I don’t think the American people realize it. And so, I think having a candid conversation with the public is the first thing that we should do and let folks know. And then obviously, we’re going to need investment right where that comes in federal dollars that will be brainpower, to NASA, to Space Force. You mean you’re going to need sort of buy in right on the race. And then we need the plan, right? We need to know how we get out of here. Not about how do we win, right, and why we’re doing this. Is a benefit to the American society as a whole, right? And so, what can Congress do in the short term? But that’s not a long-term big picture, right? Short term, you know, I don’t see a whole lot going on. Right. They had a markup last November, I think, on the Commercial Space Act 2023. You know, it was a partisan vote, party line vote I should say. The parties did agree to come back to the negotiating table, right. And see where they can come through. I mean, what’s Congress going to do at all in 2024? Right? I don’t see a whole lot happening. And so, this is where it gets kind of tricky, where politics gets involved. Right? I don’t see this being on the campaign trail a whole lot. But any sort of legislation that gets any sort of play on the House floor, the Senate floor, everybody’s going to be talking about it, including the big elephant in the room, Donald Trump. Right? I mean, so, you know, what I don’t see much space, no pun intended, between the Biden and the Trump administration sort of goals here. But are we as the House and the Senate, are they going to make time on the actual legislative side of things to do this? I don’t see much happening in that regard. So long term we definitely have some work to do. Short term, I don’t see a whole lot happening. There’s just other stuff that people are more worried about right now and more involved in right. It doesn’t make it less important; it just makes it what it is. You know that’s just the way American politics goes.

Eric White We’re speaking with Brett Richards and Ellis Brazeal, who are both attorneys in the space realm, we can say with Jones Walker. And so, we’d be remiss to not include in this conversation about government involvement in, you know, making sure that things are safe for any new technologies the US would like to place. And there is the Space Force. What can you tell me about the support that the Space Force is now getting from Congress? Because, you know, there was kind of an idea of that most folks thought was kind of funny at first, but now it’s getting up there as one of the most important branches of the military side of government.

Brett Richards Yeah, you’re exactly right. I think it did kind of start off as like, wow, do we really need this type of deal? You know, it was during the Trump administration again, everything that came out of that administration as most things do in our American politics these days, kind of get looked at through that sort of prism. But one thing that I would like to point out, I think it’s important and it’s a small gesture, but it’s something that is worth noting. In the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023 last year, where for FY 24, included a provision that established the legislative liaison Office of the Space Force. This might not sound like much, but it’s really important to see where it was before. Right. And so, the Space Force legislative lays out perhaps were with the Air Force underneath the Air Force team. And so, it doesn’t take rocket scientists to see why the Space Force will benefit from having its own formal relationship with Congress. And this goes back to our original point of being able to socialize these issues around Congress, right, without this formal relationship. Well, now that we have a formal relationship with Congress and the Space Force, the Space Force is able to tell their story. Right. And they prior, it was the Air Force that was having to tell the Space Force story. And you want to be the guy telling your story, right? You don’t want somebody else telling your story, particularly to the folks who are controlling policy and money, and all the other things that Congress does. So, you know, having this relationship started. It just passed last I think December was when it was signed into law. My understanding let’s focus on Capitol Hill. The legislative offices are actively being set up right now. And so, there’s a, there’s a real effort to get this formal understanding really moving so that that’s it. That’s a positive step in my opinion. Again, one that, it goes under the radar, right? Like legislative office, but it really is important for folks who are making the policy to be able to hear directly from Space Force themselves.

Ellis Brazeal I think I’ve got to throw one last thing in. I teach space law as an adjunct, and because I teach space law, we have to look at what’s going to happen on the moon once we get there. And so, both the US and China are headed towards the South Pole, towards the Shackleton crater, where there’s believed to be water ice, which they can, you know, we won’t have to haul water to the moon, if it’s there in the form of ice. We can also use it for industrial and other purposes. Well, whoever gets to the moon first, will get to set kind of international norms or public norms for how they conduct themselves. And one thing I didn’t realize until recently, I was talking to this lawyer at NASA. He’s at the technology office for NASA, and he’s a lawyer. And he said, look Ellis, when you land on the moon, it kicks up all the regolith. I’m sure you know the regolith. And it’s a real problem. It was for the Apollo astronauts. Well, I didn’t realize that once it gets kicked up, the regolith keeps circling the moon at high speed because there’s no atmosphere, you know, until it finally subsides due to gravity. So, people are going to set up safe zones to protect their activities from others. And they’re entitled to. But how big are those going to be? The US, I think, will set up reasonable, safe zones. That’s what’s envisioned under the Artemis Accords. China, on the other hand, is evidenced by, you know, their activities in the South China Sea, Antarctica, some other things. I’m not sure that they’ll act in the same way that we will. So, I think it’s important to get there first to set the international norms.

The post It may not feel like it, but the U.S. is in a race back to the moon again first appeared on Federal News Network.

The 30-day review was submitted to Austin on Thursday.

Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, said portions of the review are classified but the department will release what it can of the review.

Austin has been scrutinized for keeping secret his prostate cancer diagnosis in early December, his surgery and his hospitalization on Jan. 1, when he began suffering complications from the procedure.

Ryder has acknowledged that he and other public affairs and defense aides were told on Jan. 2, that Austin had been hospitalized but did not make it public and did not tell the military service leaders or the National Security Council until Jan. 4. Only then did President Joe Biden find out.

It took another four days before the reason for his hospitalization was disclosed.

And while he transferred decision-making authorities to Deputy Secretary Kathleen Hicks during his initial surgery on Dec. 22, and then again when he was in intensive care in early January, he did not tell her why.

The review was directed on Jan. 8, by Austin’s chief of staff, Kelly Magsamen, and was done by Jennifer Walsh, the Pentagon’s director of administration and management.

In a memo released at the time, Magsamen said the review should include a timeline of events and notifications after Austin was taken to the hospital by ambulance on Jan. 1. She said it must examine the existing process for when a secretary transfers decision-making authorities and who should be notified, and make recommendations for improvement.

Magsamen’s memo also made some interim changes to vastly expand the number of people who must be notified in future transfers of authority and that they must provide a reason.

Officials have said that the reason has never been included in routine transfers. According to the memo, a wider array of officials will be notified, including the Pentagon’s general counsel, the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the combatant commanders, service secretaries, the service chiefs, the White House Situation Room, and the senior staff of the secretary and deputy secretary.

The post Pentagon finishes review of Austin’s failure to tell Biden and other leaders about his cancer first appeared on Federal News Network.

Tax revenues are expected to rise by as much as $561 billion from 2024 to 2034, thanks to stepped-up enforcement made possible with money from the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act, which became law in August 2022.

The Congressional Budget Office in 2022 estimated that the tens of billions of new IRS funding provided by the IRA would increase revenues by $180.4 billion from 2022 to 2031. The IRS now says that if IRA funding is restored, renewed and diversified, estimated revenues could reach as much as $851 billion from 2024 to 2034.

Administration officials are using the report to promote President Joe Biden’s economic agenda as he campaigns for reelection — and as the IRS continually faces threats to its funding.

“This analysis demonstrates that President Biden’s investment in rebuilding the IRS will reduce the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars by making the wealthy and big corporations pay the taxes they owe,” National Economic Adviser Lael Brainard said in a statement.

“Congressional Republicans’ efforts to cut IRS funding show that they prioritize letting the wealthiest Americans and big corporations evade their taxes over cutting the deficit,” Brainard said.

The Inflation Reduction Act gave the IRS an $80 billion infusion of funds. However, House Republicans built a $1.4 billion reduction to the IRS into the debt ceiling and budget cuts package passed by Congress last summer. A separate agreement took an additional $20 billion from the IRS over the next two years to divert to other non-defense programs.

Since then, the agency has tried to show how it is spending the money it has left, in hopes of stemming the cuts. New customer service improvements rolled out as the tax season began Jan. 29, and earlier this month the IRS announced that it had recouped half a billion dollars in back taxes from rich tax cheats.

Rep. Jason Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement that the report “calls for even more IRS funding, uses pie-in-the-sky numbers, all without being straightforward about where the burdens of massive new enforcement efforts will fall.” He said increased funding will inevitably result in hundreds of thousands of additional audits for taxpayers making less than $75,000.

After the IRA was signed into law, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen directed IRS leadership not to increase audit rates on people making less than $400,000 a year annually.

Ensuring that people actually pay their taxes is one of the tax collection agency’s biggest challenges. The audit rate of millionaires fell by more than 70% from 2010 to 2019 and the audit rate on large corporations fell by more than 50%, Treasury’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Analysis Greg Leiserson told reporters. IRA funding “is enabling the IRS to reverse this trend,” Leiserson said.

The tax gap — which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid — has grown to more than $600 billion annually, according to the IRS.

The post IRS expects to collect hundreds of billions more in overdue and unpaid taxes thanks to new funding first appeared on Federal News Network.

The House approved the measure by a vote of 314-108, with opposition coming mostly from the more conservative members of the Republican conference. Shortly before the vote, the House Freedom Caucus announced it “strongly opposes” the measure because it would facilitate more spending than they support.

Nevertheless, about half of Republicans joined with Democrats in passing the third stopgap funding measure in recent months. The action came a few hours after the Senate had voted overwhelmingly to pass the bill by a vote of 77-18.

The measure extends current spending levels and buys time for the two chambers to work out their differences over full-year spending bills for the fiscal year that began in October.

The temporary measure will run to March 1 for some federal agencies. Their funds were set to run out Friday. It extends the remainder of government operations to March 8.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the president would sign the resolution and urged Republicans to quit wasting time on partisan spending bills.

“House Republicans must finally do their job and work across the aisle to pass full-year funding bills that deliver for the American people and address urgent domestic and national security priorities by passing the President’s supplemental request,” Jean-Pierre said.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has been under pressure from his right flank to scrap a $1.66 trillion budget price tag he reached with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer earlier this month for the spending bills. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said the continuing resolution passed Thursday will facilitate that agreement, and urged colleagues to vote against it.

“It’s Groundhog Day in the House chamber all the time, every day, yet again spending money we don’t have,” Roy said.

Johnson has insisted he will stick with the deal, and centrists in the party have stood behind him. They say that changing course now would be going back on his word and would weaken the speaker in future negotiations.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Americans expect Congress to govern and work in a bipartisan fashion.

“Some of my colleagues would see that this government would shut down and don’t care how hurtful that would be,” DeLauro said.

House Republicans have fought bitterly over budget levels and policy since taking the majority at the start of 2023. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was ousted by his caucus in October after striking an agreement with Democrats to extend current spending the first time. Johnson has also come under criticism as he has wrestled with how to appease his members and avoid a government shutdown in an election year.

“We just needed a little more time on the calendar to do it and now that’s where we are,” Johnson said Tuesday about the decision to extend federal funding yet again. “We’re not going to get everything we want.”

Most House Republicans have so far refrained from saying that Johnson’s job is in danger. But a revolt of even a handful of Republicans could endanger his position in the narrowly divided House.

Virginia Rep. Bob Good, one of eight Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy, has been pushing Johnson to reconsider the deal with Schumer.

“If your opponent in negotiation knows that you fear the consequence of not reaching an agreement more than they fear the consequence of not reaching an agreement, you will lose every time,” Good said this week.

Other Republicans acknowledge Johnson is in a tough spot. “The speaker was dealt with the hand he was dealt,” said Kentucky Rep. Andy Barr, noting the constraints imposed by the party’s slim majority.

In Thursday afternoon’s vote, 107 House Republicans voted to keep federal agencies funded and 106 voted against the measure. To almost lose the majority of his conference underscores the challenges facing the new speaker and signals the difficulty he will have in striking a deal that will not alienate many of his GOP colleagues. They are clamoring for deeper non-defense spending cuts and myriad conservative policy mandates.

Meanwhile, 207 Democrats voted for the resolution and only two voted against.

The short-term measure comes amid negotiations on a separate spending package that would provide wartime dollars to Ukraine and Israel and strengthen security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Johnson is also under pressure from the right not to accept a deal that is any weaker than a House-passed border measure that has no Democratic support.

Johnson, Schumer and other congressional leaders and committee heads visited the White House on Wednesday to discuss that spending legislation. Johnson used the meeting to push for stronger border security measures while Biden and Democrats detailed Ukraine’s security needs as it continues to fight Russia.

Biden has requested a $110 billion package for the wartime spending and border security.

___

Associated Press writers Farnoush Amiri, Lisa Mascaro and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

The post Congress votes to avert a shutdown and keep the government funded into early March first appeared on Federal News Network.