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 Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA

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.

SEPTEMBER STAKES
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

That relative feeling of calm, confidence and, could it be, predictability that you may have known recently has a name: congressional recess.

Since July, both the House and Senate have been out of Washington, with some lawmakers giving speeches ([link removed]) and working with ([link removed]) constituents, and others taking trips ([link removed]) overseas ([link removed]) .

But beginning today, they are back. First the Senate, which has a sort of half day to start before its first full day back Wednesday. The House will still be quiet. Lawmakers there are scheduled for another week of recess — a total of six, in case anyone is curious. They return next week.

Both chambers, and the country, face a very short runway in the weeks ahead, fraught with possible peril and certain drama. We’ve tackled some of this before, but now is a good time for us all to take a clear-eyed look at this month and beyond.

A possible government shutdown

Without a funding bill from Congress, signed by the president, most government agencies will run out of money Sept. 30 ([link removed]) .

We’ve seen this movie before. Often with the same ending: Congress passing a short-term funding bill, known as a continuing resolution (CR for short). And indeed, that is what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has told his members ([link removed]) they should expect.

However, this year’s political collision includes a particularly complicated mix of demands and dynamics.

The overall problem. Congress is divided and passing few bills. When a “must-pass” bill — say, one to fund all of the government — comes due, many powerful interests fight to get their causes into (or out of) the bill. It becomes do-or-die and also fund-or-shut down. Let’s go through the specific issues.
* The House Freedom Caucus has a problem. The conservative group plans to vote against any “clean” CR, meaning one which only keeps government funded and does nothing else. They are demanding ([link removed]) that a short-term funding bill also include: tougher border security, measures that address the “unprecedented weaponization” of the Department of Justice, and bans on some Pentagon policies, which conservatives decry as too “woke.”
* That is not big enough to block a bipartisan funding bill. The Freedom Caucus has roughly 45-55 members. (Pew Research Center counted 49 members or allies ([link removed]) in January.) But the Freedom Caucus can easily threaten Speaker McCarthy’s job security. (Here is one article on how ([link removed]) .) The group can and likely will argue that if McCarthy needs Democrats to pass a funding bill, which he would without the Freedom Caucus, he is undermining conservative power and goals.
* McCarthy’s power. McCarthy emerged intact from the last standoff with some in the Freedom Caucus, smoothly shrugging off their criticism and proclaiming the debt deal ([link removed]) he struck with President Joe Biden a winner for Republicans. But some unhappy members threatened a “reckoning” ([link removed]) and this could be that moment.
* Also, the Freedom Caucus and members like Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, are demanding Congress cut spending farther back than what is in the May debt deal ([link removed]) .
* The House and Senate also have a major problem. Those conservative spending demands set up a faceoff with the Senate, where appropriators passed all 12 appropriations bills separately ([link removed]) for the first time since 2018 and set a spending level equal to the debt deal. So, higher than House conservatives want.
* The Senate has two major advantages. The Senate is often the more difficult chamber because it usually requires bipartisanship — 60 votes — to pass a bill. For this reason, the House is often given the choice of “a bill the Senate likes or no bill.” This seems to be the initial dynamic here. The Senate also returns a week earlier than the House and will potentially pass more appropriations bills to show for it.
* But wait, there’s more! There are several other major issues hovering in the discussion. Biden and others want more money to aid Ukraine ([link removed]) , and FEMA wants a special line of funding to help a key disaster fund that is already running out of money ([link removed]) in a record-breaking year for costly, weather-related events ([link removed]) . These two things are sparking separate standoffs ([link removed]) that directly affect the funding debate.

What happens next? We expect the Senate to start bundling ([link removed]) its appropriations bills together in small batches — called “minibuses” (really ([link removed]) ) — and attempt to pass one or two this week. That is a message to the House, which will be at least a week behind. Though, in truth, both are running out of time.

McConnell’s next chance to explain what’s happening

Amid this complicated existential and financial crisis, the Capitol also faces a leadership question: Can Mitch McConnell stay in his job ([link removed]) as Republican Senate leader?

McConnell, who is the longest-serving party leader in Senate history, froze at a press event ([link removed]) in Kentucky last week. This was the second time that has happened to him. (The first was in July ([link removed]) ).

For the first time as Senate minority leader, McConnell faces real questions about his future.

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

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley has publicly called for term limits ([link removed]) following the latest incident, and a basic cognitive assessment for candidates. And a group of Republican senators is reportedly considering calling a “special meeting” ([link removed]) about his leadership.

So far, McConnell’s team has presented its defense, with a statement from the Capitol Hill attending physician saying McConnell was “medically clear” ([link removed]) to continue his event schedule. This morning, his office released a letter from the physician saying that there was "no evidence" ([link removed]) of these health episodes being strokes or seizures. But there are still many questions unanswered.

For the moment, that includes: What does this mean for spending talks? McConnell is known for reading the motivations of his members and helping mold bills to get them to a “yes.”

We should know more soon. On Wednesday, senators are expected to speak ([link removed]) before the cameras. It’s McConnell’s next chance to explain what is happening with his health — and for everyone watching to see how he handles himself.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: As labor movements spread nationwide, Biden has been highlighting how his administration is helping unions ([link removed]) .
* One Big Question: Is the president’s “Bidenomics” pitch ([link removed]) sinking in with the American public? NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter weigh in ([link removed]) .
* A Closer Look: A new Illinois law protects money children earn ([link removed]) as social media influencers.
* Perspectives: A former FEMA head discusses the evolving challenges ([link removed]) in responding to extreme weather, among other duties.

WHY SOME LEGAL SCHOLARS SAY TRUMP CAN’T BE ON THE BALLOT
[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.
By Tess Conciatori, @tkconch ([link removed])
White House Producer

President Donald Trump has a clear lead in the race for the 2024 Republican nomination, despite his mounting legal troubles ([link removed]) .

But is he qualified to run?

A cohort of conservative legal scholars say no ([link removed]) , writing that Trump violated the 14th Amendment with his actions on and before the Jan. 6 Capitol attack. Under a Civil War-era provision ([link removed]) of the 14th Amendment, candidates who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” or “given aid or comfort to the enemies” are not eligible to assume public office.

Now, a new lawsuit — as well as discussions among election officials in Arizona and Michigan — seeks to test that legal theory, which is gaining ([link removed]) traction ([link removed]) among Trump’s opponents, including those on the campaign trail ([link removed]) .

A Trump campaign spokesperson has described the theory as “absurd” and a political attack ([link removed]) against the former president.

Ned Foley, director of election law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, said it’s not an outlandish theory for experts to consider.

“The arguments for disqualification are quite strong, very strong. But there are counterarguments on the other side,” he told the PBS NewsHour’s Laura Barrón-López ([link removed]) . “The strongest argument is that — whatever Trump's moral culpability was for the riot that occurred, that he fomented the riot, that his tweet that "it will be wild" on Jan. 6, those kinds of things that clearly implicate him in the Jan. 6 attack — does it count as engaging within the meaning of the Constitution, or is it sufficiently giving ‘aid and comfort’ to the insurrectionists?”

Either way, Foley said it’s a question that needs resolution sooner rather than later.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Ali Schmitz, @SchmitzMedia ([link removed])
Politics Producer

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez is the first Republican presidential candidate to drop out of the 2024 race ([link removed]) .

Last week’s announcement came just days after Suarez did not qualify to appear at the first Republican primary debate ([link removed]) in Wisconsin.

Suarez’s bid for the White House lasted for less than three months, but it was not the shortest presidential major party campaign in modern history.

Our question: Which major party candidate has had the shortest presidential campaign in modern 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 is the only other person to moderate more than two presidential or vice presidential debates?

The answer: Bob Schieffer ([link removed]) . The veteran CBS News broadcast journalist retired about eight years ago. He moderated debates in 2004, 2008 and 2012.

Congratulations to our winners: Lori Mammen, Dick Livingston and Joanne Martin! And a special shout-out to Dick and Joanne for listing all three years, too.

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])