It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]

[link removed]

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

THE BATTLE OVER DEFENSE
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

This is the point in the year where calendars diverge.

For most of us, there are 22 weeks until the new year. For Congress, just five working weeks remain until the end of its fiscal year on Sept. 30.

That includes this week, the last one before Congress’ planned August recess. (I joked yesterday ([link removed]) that this is in the Constitution, but it is not.)

In those five weeks, both chambers need to somehow pass the largest and — this year — most complicated pieces of legislation before them: the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, and the 12 appropriations bills that fund government agencies.

The NDAA goes first, with what looks to be a frenzied effort in the Senate this week.

Let’s walk through what is happening and why, including whether all of this could end in a government shutdown. (It could.)

Some background

The NDAA: sets out the budget and spending policy for the Department of Defense.
Appropriations bills: pass the actual funding.

This is why the NDAA, ideally, needs to be first in line, and why it is seen as “must pass.” It anchors the appropriations bills by setting funding parameters for the nation’s single largest agency.

Another notable fact: The NDAA is nearly always bipartisan, a statement of support for the military and compromise over how it should operate. Unlike nearly every other piece of legislation in Congress, the NDAA has passed every year since 1961 ([link removed]) .

Why is the 2023 NDAA different?

The debate has been extremely partisan. Here’s what happened.

In the House
* This was an incredibly bipartisan bill just a few weeks go. The House Armed Services Committee passed its version of the NDAA by a vote of 58-1(!) last month ([link removed]) .
* But hard-line conservatives in the House, unhappy with the debt deal compromise ([link removed]) from earlier this summer, pushed for right-leaning amendments in the final version. Several of those amendments passed ([link removed]) on the House floor, adding limits on abortion access and transgender health care and banning prominent diversity programs in the military.
* The final House NDAA emerged as distinctly partisan, passing 219-210 ([link removed]) mostly along party lines.
* Adding to signs of future contention: House Speaker Kevin McCarthy confirmed to me that he promised Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., that she would serve on the conference committee tasked with working out a final deal with the Senate.
* In the meantime, the Senate has been moving along a more traditional, bipartisan path. Reminder: This bill will need 60 votes in that chamber and therefore must be more bipartisan in order to survive.


This brings us to the Senate

This week, there are three days of critical votes on amendments and — the hope is — final passage of the NDAA.

The amendment votes will be tests of two things:
* Where some key senators stand ahead of a sharp election year
* How difficult it will be to get an agreement with the House

Something else we don’t know: If the Senate will be able to pass a bill at all this week. The schedule, as well as amendments and other issues involved, may make too steep of a hill to climb in three days.

Amendments and issues this week

A few amendments of note that we expect in the Senate:
* Ukraine. Efforts to block funding for Ukraine failed by a large margin in the House and are expected to also die in the Senate. But they will still mean a difficult vote for many senators and a test of where support for Ukraine stands.
* Abortion and trans health care policies. Amendments to block or affirm policies on abortion and trans health care. We will watch closely to see which ideas get votes and who falls where.
* Reminder: After the end of Roe v. Wade, Defense Sec. Lloyd Austin set new policy around reproductive health care ([link removed]) , including authorizing travel and time off for abortions for service members who don’t have access to such care where they’re stationed. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. ([link removed]) , objects to this policy and as a result is blocking all flag officer nominees for the military.
* UFOs. And here’s an example of the fascinating other things that can pop up in the NDAA debate. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ([link removed]) has proposed an amendment to declassify records about “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” officially UAPs ([link removed]) . We know them better as UFOs. And for the record, we are pro-transparency in all things, including UFOs. Er, UAPs ([link removed]) .

Why this matters

This ongoing debate over amendments will affect major military and cultural issues. For the military, readiness, pay, weapons, future purchases and nearly all internal policies are at stake.

Culturally, this is yet another collision point in fierce battles over individual rights.

And for all of us, something else is at stake too: a possible government shutdown.

Look back at that calendar at the top of this piece. Just five weeks remain for lawmakers to sort out these debates AND to figure out government funding. After Sept. 30, without action from Congress, there will be no funding for most federal agencies.

Sure, a temporary funding bill is the usual solution. But House Republicans have indicated they don’t want to support that. And there is little reason to expect any of the dynamics now to change within a few weeks.

In other words, September — when Congress returns — will be incredibly rocky. And the NDAA will be one of the central sources of turbulence.

More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: President Joe Biden signed a proclamation ([link removed]) Tuesday establishing a national monument honoring Emmett Till and mother Mamie Till-Mobley.
* One Big Question: Meanwhile, conservative leaders at the state and local levels have pushed legislation that limits the teaching of slavery and Black history in public schools. Why do they oppose the teachings ([link removed]) ?
* A Closer Look: A new investigation shines a light on how sexual assault claims against immigration officials are routinely ignored ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and Post contributor Gary Abernathy discuss how the multiple investigations into former President Donald Trump are affecting the 2024 race ([link removed]) .

2 VIEWS ON A THIRD-PARTY CANDIDATE

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

There has been a crop of possible third-party contenders in conversation for the 2024 race.

Larry Hogan, former Republican governor of Maryland, is the national co-chair for “No Labels,” a bipartisan political group that is considering a “unity” ticket — one Democrat and one Republican — for the White House next year.

Hogan said a primary goal for No Labels is to keep former President Donald Trump from returning to the Oval Office.

"I think it would be a terrible mistake for the Republican Party to nominate Donald Trump, and I think it'd be terrible for the country for Donald Trump to be elected president again," he told the PBS NewsHour ([link removed]) .

A possible No Labels run is a specter for some Democrats and anti-Trump Republicans who worry that a third-party ticket in 2024 could serve as a spoiler for Joe Biden’s reelection bid and help clear a path for Trump to regain the White House.

Former House Democratic Majority Leader Dick Gephardt leads Citizens to Save Our Republic, a group of former Democratic and Republican lawmakers that aims to stop No Labels’ efforts ([link removed]) .

In normal times, Gephardt said he’d have no problem with third-party tickets, which have existed before. But, he said, “These are not normal times,” adding that a No Labels candidacy would siphon votes from Biden.

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

“They say they're forming an insurance policy in the case the candidates are Trump and Biden,” Gephardt said of No Labels. “That's precisely the time they should not do this, if their goal is not to reelect Donald Trump.”

Hogan, responding to Gephardt’s comments, said it was too soon to predict who the nominees might be and whether a No Labels ticket — if it even comes to be — would draw votes away from Biden.

“But I can tell you that the Democrats are in a full-blown panic because their candidate is in a really weak position,” he said.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Cybele Mayes-Osterman, @CybeleMO ([link removed])
Associate Editorial Producer

A House Oversight Committee’s hearing ([link removed]) Wednesday will feature testimony from three former military officials on “unidentified anomalous phenomena,”otherwise known as UAPs — or to the rest of us, UFOs. It’s the latest in a growing push for transparency ([link removed]) around the Pentagon’s knowledge of unidentified flying objects.

It comes as a bipartisan group of senators, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., introduced an amendment ([link removed]) to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act that seeks to declassify more UAP-related information from the Pentagon.

Our question: This proposed amendment is modeled upon an act that aimed to declassify information about which major event in American history?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: Who was the last third-party candidate to win electoral votes?

The answer: George Wallace ([link removed]) . The segregationist and former Alabama governor won 46 electoral votes in 1968.

Congratulations to our winners: R. Garrett Mitchell and James Inman!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])