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

Photo by Tom Brenner/Reuters
WHAT CONGRESS IS JUGGLING
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

Rarely is the U.S. Senate in session for a stretch this long. It’s going on – six weeks in a row; usually the chamber prefers three ([link removed]) . (The House took a break from the nation’s capital in March.)

But the extra time together has not brought increased productivity. Rather, senators have created or ran head-first into roadblocks on big issues, including COVID funding and how to penalize Russia for its actions in Ukraine ([link removed]) .

But time is running out for action. Senators are due to conclude business by Thursday or Friday and head to their home states. Here’s a quick look at three big issues on the table as senators gaze at their watches.

Supreme Court nomination

Of all the business in the Capitol this week, only the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson for the Supreme Court seems firmly on track ([link removed]) for completion within days.

On Monday, as you might have seen, the Senate voted to formally take up her nomination. (A tie vote in the Judiciary Committee necessitated a Senate “discharge” vote to bring her nomination to the floor. That is a first for a Supreme Court nominee ([link removed]) .)
* Three Republicans joined Democrats to advance the nomination: Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mitt Romney, R-Utah.
* Strong statements. Sens. Collins and Murkowski slammed Jackson’s nomination process and the questioning she faced. Murkowski praised Jackson’s qualifications, but also said ([link removed]) her “yes” vote is a statement against “the corrosive politicization of the review process for Supreme Court nominees, which, on both sides of the aisle, is growing worse and more detached from reality by the year.”
* When’s the final vote? Given the Senate rules, a final confirmation vote is likely Thursday or Friday.
* Why the wait? Senate procedure requires the following (unless every senator agrees to speed things up): a motion to end debate a full day before that motion matures, a vote on that motion and then up to 30 hours of debate afterward if it passes. That gets you to Friday.
* But! There’s a but. One thing that could help in this situation. Democrats, we are told, plan to require Republicans to stand on the Senate floor and actually speak in order for debate to continue. Each senator can only speak for up to an hour. Many believe this will shorten things significantly. And this could mean a vote Thursday is possible.
* Remember: Senators want to get out of Washington, making Thursday seem like a decent bet for this vote.

COVID funding

As the Supreme Court nomination steams forward at consistent speed, COVID funding is moving in fits and starts.

This week, Romney and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a $10 billion compromise ([link removed]) for new federal COVID health care spending. As you’ll read, its future for the next few days is not yet certain.
* COVID treatments. At least $5 billion in this deal is for COVID treatment or “therapeutics.” That includes lab work on therapeutics and providing the drugs to patients.
* Vaccines. At least $750 million is for research and development of vaccines for emerging variants.
* No international aid. Many Democrats, especially Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., are fuming that Republicans would not agree to fund $1 billion or more in COVID assistance to the rest of the world. Republicans stood firm that any funding in the bill must be paid for – and Democrats rejected GOP suggestions for how to fund this remaining item.
* How is it paid for? The two parties agreed to use unspent COVID funding from a variety of categories, including the “Shuttered Venue” program for theaters.
* Time is important here. The Biden administration has warned ([link removed]) that states could see cuts in key treatments (Monoclonal antibodies, for example, would run out sometime late May.) Money for certain programs already started to run out at the end of March. ([link removed])
* Will this become law? The good news for those concerned is there seems to be enough support in the Senate. And this morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said he believes it will pass the House as well.
* When will *this* vote come? This bill needs 60 votes in the Senate and also could be subject to some amendment votes. All of that takes time in the upper chamber. So while there is hope for votes on something this week, we are skeptical. (Also there is no legislative text yet.)
* Why is this taking so long? That is an important question. There are enough pointed fingers in the halls of the Capitol right now to make the building hard to navigate. So, there are longer answers. But the short answer is that many lawmakers have not felt enough of a sense of urgency on this issue, opening up the possibility for individuals to raise concerns and delay the process. Also, Republicans have doubled-down on their insistence that none of this package be red ink.

About Russia

The last piece of spring finals week in Congress is also the one most mired in delay: the effort to strip Russia and Belarus of a favorable trade status and codify the ban on Russian oil imports.

The slowdown is especially notable because these bills passed the House resoundingly last month, with a vote of 424-8 on the trade status suspension and 414-17 on the energy import ban.
* What is this trade status they want to revoke? It is known as permanent normal trade relations ([link removed]) . Or, naturally, “PNTR.” That status means the United States does not have any discriminatory or penalizing trade barriers with a nation. Most nations in the world have PNTR with the U.S., with Cuba and North Korea as exceptions. Russia regained PNTR in 2012.
* What about the oil import ban? That is a separate bill, but connected in that many Republicans want both items passed (see below). Biden has already banned Russian imports of oil using executive power, so in one sense, congressional action would be symbolic. But in another, it is an important codification of the policy.
* What is the holdup in the Senate? There have been multiple problems, largely concerns raised by a few Republicans.
* Holdup 1: Rand Paul. The initial slowdown came in large part due to concern from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., that the language in the bill expanded a type of sanction too far. He raised questions about whether wording about human rights abuses could have been construed to include things like limits on abortion. But about a week ago, Paul reached agreement on language he approved.
* Holdup 2: Mike Crapo. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, blocked the trade status bill in March in an effort to force Democrats to add the oil ban bill to it as well. Majority Leader Schumer has refused, saying the oil ban is already in place thanks to presidential action.
* Other holdups. Crapo has said he wants the legislation to move quickly, but his objections (and Paul’s) opened up a Pandora’s box on the bill – and now a handful of other Republicans are refusing to let it move quickly.
* How can a handful of senators hold this up? Because it is the Senate. In order to move either of these Russia bills along quickly, every member of the Senate must agree to a fast-track process. Conversely, any senator can raise a concern and hobble things. Democrats can bring these bills up under more “regular order,” but that would take up at least a week of the Senate’s floor time. And first, they want to get the Jackson nomination confirmed.

AS ROE V. WADE HANGS IN THE BALANCE, OKLAHOMA IS SEEKING MORE RESTRICTIONS
House Democratic Leader Rep. Emily Virgin speaks at a rally Tuesday outside the Oklahoma State Capitol. Photo by Adam Kemp/PBS NewsHour

By Adam Kemp, @Adam_WK ([link removed])
Communities Correspondent, Oklahoma City

The Oklahoma House passed legislation last month that abortion rights advocates call the strictest anti-abortion bill in the country. The bill, which now awaits a vote in the Senate, goes farther than the six-week ban in Texas ([link removed]) . Unlike Texas’ law, Oklahoma’s version would ban the procedure immediately after conception ([link removed]) , unless it met one of two exceptions: “to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency” or if the pregnancy was the “result of rape, sexual assault, or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.”

House Bill 4327 joins a wave of anti-abortion measures introduced across the country so far this year. Many states led by right-leaning legislatures – Idaho, Florida and Missouri, among others – are seeking to establish legal groundwork should the Supreme Court modify or peel pack Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 right to an abortion, later this year.

Here’s a quick rundown of other anti-abortion measures making their way through the Oklahoma legislature:

Aside from the House bill, three anti-abortion measures that the Oklahoma Senate passed earlier in March have also drawn attention:
* Senate Bill 1503 ([link removed]) – Modeled after Texas’ Senate Bill 8 law, this bill would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and allow private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion for up to $10,000.
* Senate Bill 1553 ([link removed]) – This bill prohibits an abortion 30 days after the probable beginning of a pregnant woman’s last menstrual period. The measure would also require a woman who is raped or a victim of incest to carry the child, but it would provide an exception to save the life of the mother.
* Senate Joint Resolution 17 ([link removed]) – This resolution would ask voters to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to say life begins at conception and ban abortion-inducing drugs, except to protect the life of the mother.


Katie Samsel, 22, an Oklahoma City resident, listens to abortion rights advocates speak on the steps of the Oklahoma State Capitol on Tuesday. Photo by Adam Kemp/PBS NewsHour

Why it’s important to watch what happens in Oklahoma
* Oklahoma currently allows abortions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy, which makes it a “critical access point” for those from neighboring Texas, where state law has essentially banned the practice after six weeks of pregnancy.
* Nearly 45 percent of Texans who traveled out of state between September and December 2021 obtained abortion care in Oklahoma, according to data from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project ([link removed]) .
* Republicans have the largest supermajority in the state House and Senate in state history. This has allowed Republicans in Oklahoma to push restrictions that appeal to their passionate and partisan voter base, said Rachel Blum, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma. Many anti-abortion activists and lawmakers have worked for years to get to this moment.
* Abortion advocates say the new proposed laws in Oklahoma would increase the burden on people seeking abortion, especially people of color, to seek abortions out of state, This includes putting people’s health and safety at risk by forcing them to take off work, make costly travel and child care arrangements, and drive hours to and from an abortion provider.

What’s next. Seven anti-abortion bills, including HB 4327, are expected to receive final votes this week in Oklahoma – and all are expected to pass.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, has promised to sign any anti-abortion measure that reaches his desk. Most of the laws are expected to be challenged in the courts, but abortion rights advocates say this could be a “tipping point” in the fight over Roe v. Wade, believing that state lawmakers seek to not only eliminate the federally protected right to abortion but punish those who help others obtain it.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
Poet Laureate Howard Nemerov reads a poem during a 1989 joint session of Congress. Photo courtesy of Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives

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

Tess Conciatori, @tkconch ([link removed])
White House Producer

April is National Poetry Month ([link removed]) . And it’s worth remembering the poets and verse that have had a moment in the policymaking halls of Congress.

According to the House of Representatives’ archives, it was minority leader Robert Michel, a Republican from Illinois, who noted during the 1989 bicentennial celebration of Congress that the bicameral body could use not more congressional prose, “but the fiery, living truth of great poetry. ([link removed]) ”

The congressman then introduced Howard Nemerov, the then-poet laureate of the United States, who read a poem on the importance of a democracy, one that worked toward fairness and justice, and the consequences of letting “our enterprise collapse in silence.”

You can read that poem, titled “To the Congress of the United States Entering Its Third Century, With Preface,” here ([link removed]) .

Our question: Who was the first president to invite a poet to speak at an inauguration? And who was the poet?

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: When was the first anti-lynching bill introduced in Congress? And which member sponsored the legislation?

The answer: In 1900 ([link removed](W000372)/) . George Henry White, at the time the only African American member of Congress, introduced the first anti-lynching bill. (Careful watchers will know this answer was included in the NewsHour’s segment ([link removed]) on the new anti-lynching law.)

Congratulations to our winners: Robin Rabinowitz, Ed Witt and Ms. marypaz!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2022 NEWSHOUR LLC, 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])