The Senate approved a measure Wednesday evening to override President Biden’s move last year to allow Chinese solar panel makers to avoid tariffs for 24 months.

In a bipartisan 56-41 vote, the Senate voted in favor of the resolution — which was sponsored by Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. — the latest congressional action to face an expected veto from President Biden. The vote comes less than a week after the House passed a companion resolution with 12 Democrats voting in favor.

‘This measure is pro-American jobs and anti-Chinese forced and child labor. It’s that simple,’ Scott remarked on the Senate floor ahead of the vote.

‘It’s time for the Senate to finish the job in Congress and send this to President Biden’s desk. This isn’t partisan, it’s about human rights,’ he continued. ‘I will not stand by, and I hope the U.S. Senate will not stand by, and accept excuses to turn a blind eye to communist China’s human rights atrocities.’

Overall, Chinese companies control a more than 80% share in the global solar panel industry, controlling the supply chain in all the manufacturing stages of the product, according to the International Energy Agency. The Chinese solar industry has been tied to forced labor in China’s Xinjiang province.

In addition to Manchin, several Democrats including Sens. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; and John Fetterman, D-Pa., voted with Republicans in favor of the legislation.

‘Ohioans are manufacturing solar panels that can power our economy,’ Brown said Wednesday in remarks of his own. ‘They just need a level playing field. You can’t say you want American manufacturing to lead the world, while allowing Chinese companies, often subsidized by the Chinese government, to skirt the rules and dump solar panels into the U.S.

‘This comes down to whose side you’re on: Do you stand with workers in Ohio, or do you stand with the Chinese Communist Party?’

In June 2022, Biden implemented the 24-month moratorium on the enforcement of solar panel anti-circumvention tariffs introduced under the Obama administration to protect U.S. companies. The White House characterized the move as a two-year ‘bridge’ that would allow companies to build solar panel production capabilities on U.S. soil.

The move, however, came after the Commerce Department said months earlier it would investigate whether Chinese manufacturers were routing solar panels through countries in Southeast Asia to avoid U.S. tariffs. And in December, the agency published its preliminary findings showing four large solar companies had routed products through Cambodia, Malaysia and Vietnam to circumvent duties. 

The Commerce Department is expected to release its final findings this month. Still, the White House vowed last week that Biden would veto the resolution passed Wednesday if it made it to his desk, regardless of the findings. 

‘From day one, the President has prioritized investments that will create good-paying jobs and build secure supply chains in the United States, including for solar energy,’ the White House said April 24. ‘The Administration is working aggressively to support domestic solar panel manufacturing.’

The resolution, meanwhile, earned the support of pro-tariff groups like the Coalition for a Prosperous America and human rights groups like the Uyghur Human Rights Project.

Environmental groups and green energy organizations like the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) have opposed it.

‘We are urging senators to see through this political charade and examine the facts at hand,’ SEIA President and CEO Abigail Ross Hopper said last week.

‘The United States cannot produce enough solar panels and cells to meet demand, and the remaining 14 months of this moratorium gives us time to close the gap,’ she continued. ‘The United States can get there and become a global leader in clean energy manufacturing and development. Overturning the moratorium at this stage puts that future at risk.’ 

Following the vote Wednesday, Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., who sponsored the House version of the bill alongside Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., applauded the Senate vote.

‘I am pleased to see the U.S. Senate, in a strong bipartisan vote, pass my legislation that supports American workers,’ Kildee said in a statement. ‘We must hold those who violate U.S. trade laws accountable, including China.

‘When we fail to enforce our trade laws, it hurts Michigan and American businesses and workers. I will continue standing up for fair trade and the American worker, including support efforts to expand the domestic manufacturing of solar panels.’

Lawmakers in Albany passed a $229 billion spending plan that will increase the state’s minimum wage, tweak its bail laws and attempt to curb illegal and unlicensed marijuana shops.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul will sign the 10 bills into law Wednesday, according to her office.

Negotiations between the governor and her fellow Democrats who control the Legislature produced a deal late Tuesday that is packed with compromises, including many between the party’s left and center.

Under one of the bills, the minimum wage would increase to $17 in New York City and its suburbs, and $16 elsewhere in the state by 2026, with future hikes pegged to inflation.

Opponents of the wage increase said it could harm small businesses and family farms that were hurt financially during the coronavirus pandemic.

‘We ask our leaders to look for additional ways to offset mounting labor costs as the new minimum wage will keep increasing in the coming years along with inflation,’ the New York Farm Bureau, which represents farmers, said in a statement.

Lawmakers also approved a revision of the state’s bail law that will give judges more discretion to jail certain criminal defendants before trial unless they are able to come up with cash guaranteeing their return to court.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a former police officer, applauded those changes at a budget-related announcement with Hochul on Wednesday. He said his team met with the governor’s staff multiple times at the beginning of the budget process to push through the changes.

‘The governor heard us, she brought her team together, and we were able to zero in on those who are repeat offenders and that is important,’ he said.

Hochul insisted on the changes despite an outcry from some liberal Democrats who see it as partially rolling back changes approved in 2019 that eliminated pretrial incarceration for most nonviolent offenses.

State Senator Gustavo Rivera, a Democrat, criticized the bail changes.

‘It is short-sighted, but not surprising, that the governor made another attempt to reform bail laws to further criminalize poverty instead of focusing on the services and economic justice we need for safer communities,’ he said in a statement.

Another budget bill gives state regulators power to confiscate marijuana products from unlicensed pot shops, which have proliferated since the state legalized recreational marijuana.

The budget will also increase the state’s cigarette tax by $1, to $5.35, though lawmakers rejected Hochul’s proposed ban on menthol cigarettes.

For New York City, funds in the budget will improve the frequency of trains for the city’s public transportation system, as well as a pilot program that will give each of the five boroughs one free bus route. About $1.1 billion in annual funding for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority will come from a payroll tax increase on the city’s largest businesses.

The votes came a little over a month past the initial April 1 deadline, with budget talks largely held up over the changes to the bail law and other policy issues. In New York, the state budget often serves as a vessel for passing major policy legislation.

A New York Supreme Court judge on Wednesday threw out the $100 million lawsuit brought by former President Donald Trump against The New York Times concerning a 2018 report on his taxes.

Trump filed the lawsuit against the liberal paper, as well as his estranged niece, Mary Trump, in Sep. 2021, accusing them of ‘tortiously breaching and/or interfering with his contractual rights and otherwise maliciously conspiring against him’ for the report on his taxes.

Justice Robert R. Reed took a dig at Trump in his ruling, referring to him as the ‘twice-impeached former president,’ and said his claims against The Times ‘fail as a matter of constitutional law.’

He added that the Times’ reporting was at ‘the very core of protected First Amendment activity.’

‘The New York Times is pleased with the judge’s decision today. It is an important precedent reaffirming that the press is protected when it engages in routine newsgathering to obtain information of vital importance to the public,’ the liberal outlet said in a statement following the ruling.

According to the suit, ‘The defendants engaged in an insidious plot to obtain confidential and highly-sensitive records which they exploited for their own benefit and utilized as a means of falsely legitimizing their publicized works. The defendants’ actions were motivated by a personal vendetta and their desire to gain fame, notoriety, acclaim and a financial windfall and were further intended to advance their political agenda.’

The suit specifically names as defendants Times reporters David Barstow, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner, who collectively earned a Pulitzer Prize in 2019 for their ‘explanatory reporting’ into Trump’s wealth based on tax documents they obtained. 

Trump alleged the trio of journalists were ‘in the middle of an extensive crusade to obtain’ his ‘confidential tax records’ and that Mary Trump was convinced to ‘smuggle the records out of her attorney’s office and turn them over’ to the paper. 

While the ruling on Trump’s claims against the Times came Wednesday, no ruling has been made on his claims against Mary Trump, who has been an outspoken critic of her uncle and regularly appears on liberal cable news networks to bash him.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Trump campaign for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Fox News’ Joseph A. Wulfsohn and Brian Flood contributed to this report.

Decisive Democratic wins in Lincoln, Nebraska have left Democrats optimistic about their chances in some races next year.Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican whose Biden-won district covers Douglas and Saunders counties in the Omaha metro area, is among Nebraska Democrats’ top targets.Some Republicans blame their electoral shortcomings on social issues, particularly abortion. ‘This made the message clear to me how critical abortion will be in 2024,’ Republican state Rep. Merv Riepe said. ‘We must embrace the future of reproductive rights.’

A decisive win by Democrats in hotly-contested local races in Lincoln could be indicative of the party’s chances next year, including in a presidential election where Nebraska’s Omaha-centered 2nd Congressional District has twice given an electoral vote to Democratic presidential candidates.

Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that allow their electoral votes to be split in presidential elections. That system has confounded Nebraska Republicans, who have been unable to force the state into a winner-take-all system since Barack Obama became the first presidential contender to shave off one of Nebraska’s five electoral votes in 2008. It happened again in 2020, when President Joe Biden captured Nebraska’s 2nd District electoral vote.

Democratic Party leaders see an opportunity to capitalize on Republicans’ hard shift to the right, particularly on religious and culture war issues — including the recent push across red states to target the transgender and LGBTQ+ community members, ban books from schools and libraries and vastly restrict abortion access. Those efforts are unpopular with the majority of voters, Nebraska Democratic Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb said Wednesday.

‘Women’s reproductive freedom will continue to be a key issue that voters want a clear answer from candidates on where they stand, and Republicans are simply out of step with the majority of Nebraskans,’ Kleeb said.

Lincoln Mayor Leirion Gaylor Baird, a Democrat, handily won a second term Tuesday, despite an aggressive push by Republicans to oust her in favor of former Lincoln state Sen. Suzanne Geist, who saw more than $1.5 million pumped into her campaign by GOP donors. That included hundreds of thousands of dollars each by the family of former Gov. Pete Ricketts and the Peed family that owns publishing company Sandhills Global, based in Lincoln.

Geist had stepped down from her legislative seat last month to focus on the mayor’s race. Campaign ads supporting her painted Lincoln as an unsafe, crime-ridden city under Baird and blanketed airways for weeks before Tuesday’s election.

Lincoln, Nebraska’s capital and home of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, is one of the few communities in the conservative state where Democrats can claim regular election victories. But Tuesday’s win stood out for the number wins Democrats scored, including 3 of 4 contested City Council seats, giving Democrats a dominant 6-1 advantage. And Republicans lost all three of the contested local school board seats.

The only other area of the state where Democrats have seen some success in the last three decades is in Omaha, the state’s largest city with more than 850,000 in the city and surrounding suburbs.

‘We’ve learned many lessons over the last few cycles of what works and what we need to improve on,’ Kleeb said. ‘As the Democratic Party, we are going to continue to build in the blue dots of Lincoln and Omaha while making sure we invest in rural towns that deeply care about public schools, access to abortion and protecting our democracy.’

The Nebraska Republican Party didn’t address its Lincoln losses on its Twitter or Facebook pages, and state party chairman Eric Underwood did not immediately return a message Wednesday seeking comment.

But the party has made no secret of its frustration over losing Omaha’s electoral vote to Democrats in recent presidential elections. Republicans tried for nine years after first splitting the state’s electoral votes to revert to a winner-take-all system, but those proposals failed year after year. The effort was resurrected after Biden won the Omaha vote in 2020, but it has gained little traction. A bill introduced this year has been stuck in committee.

Republicans have instead relied on redistricting to curtail Democrats’ progress in the 2nd District, having twice redrawn the district’s boundaries since 2008 to favor Republican candidates.

But even some Republicans have said that might not be enough to overcome a turnout of voters soured on the hot-button issues targeted by GOP-led legislatures this year.

Nebraska Sen. Merv Riepe publicly warned his fellow Republican colleagues last week that efforts to ban abortion will cost them at the polls next year.

Riepe, an 80-year-old former hospital administrator, had initially signed on as a cosponsor to a Nebraska bill that would effectively ban abortions as six weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. But he later refused to give the measure the final vote it needed to survive a filibuster over concerns the ban was too strict.

Riepe pointed to his own election last year against a Democrat who made abortion rights central to her campaign, noting that his margin of victory dropped from 27 percentage points in the May primary election, which occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, to under 5 percentage points in the general election after the fall of Roe.

‘This made the message clear to me how critical abortion will be in 2024,’ he said. ‘We must embrace the future of reproductive rights.’

The Florida Legislature passed a bill aimed at implementing more stringent safety regulations for amusement park rides just over a year after 14-year-old Tyre Sampson fell from a ride and died.

Sampson died on March 24, 2022, after falling off the Orlando FreeFall at ICON Park in Orlando.

An operating manual for the ride states the maximum passenger weight is just over 286 pounds. Sampson was 6-foot-5 and reportedly weighed 360 pounds.

According to Bay News 9, SB 902, authored by state Sen. Geraldine Thompson, would require that permanent amusement park rides submit a commissioning and certification report with the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The bill changes the circumstances that require ride owners to report an incident, which in some cases could result in it being shut down by the state.

Additionally, the bill requires signs that advise people of ride restrictions, such as maximum and minimum height and weight – something that was a focal point in Sampson’s incident.

The bill would require that such signs be ‘prominently displayed’ at the entrance of each ride.

If a ride has an operating manual that doesn’t include such restrictions, the bill would require a qualified inspector to confirm that no restrictions exist.

In previous comments to Fox News Digital, Thompson said that amusement park attendees need to know when restrictions exist on rides.

‘We should make sure that there is signage as you approach the ride that indicates any height and weight restrictions,’ Thompson said. ‘It absolutely should be mandatory so that, as the consumer approaches the ride, he or she knows what the height and weight restrictions are, and family members and friends who were with that person would know what those restrictions are.’ 

A Twitter post showing the signage outside the Orlando FreeFall didn’t include weight requirements, but did include a minimum and maximum height.

SB 904, a separate bill passed by the state Legislature, aims to make records regarding ongoing investigations on amusement park not available to the public.

If signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, the bills would take effect July 1.

Ritchie Armstrong, who works for Orlando Slingshot, which operates Orlando FreeFall, told Fox News Digital in a statement that the company is pleased that the ‘Tyre Sampson Act’ passed.

‘We are glad the Tyre Sampson Act was passed. We continue to be devoted to the safety of our patrons and have voiced our support for this legislation throughout the process in the legislature,’ Armstrong said.

The company that operated the Orlando FreeFall and Orlando Slingshot, has said that it supports the bill honoring Sampson.

Orlando Slingshot announced in October 2022 that the ride would be torn down.

‘Orlando Slingshot announced it has decided to take down the 400-foot-tall FreeFall ride attraction on International Drive. The decision resulted from the accidental death of Tyre Sampson on March 24,’ the company said in a statement.

The ride has been closed since the incident happened. 

Nikki Fried, former Florida commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said maladjustments made to the seat’s proximity sensor triggered the safety light, incorrectly allowing Sampson to ride even though he was not ‘properly secured in the seat.’

‘These maladjustments allowed the safety lights to illuminate — improperly satisfying the ride’s electronic safety mechanisms — that allowed the ride to operate even though Mr. Sampson was not properly secured in the seat,’ Fried said. ‘The report confirms that manual adjustments had been made to the sensor for the seat in question that allowed the harness’ restraint opening to be almost double that of the normal restraints opening range.’

A report by the department states the harness of the seat Sampson was in had a proximity sensor that ‘was manually loosened, adjusted, and tightened to allow a restraint opening of near 7 inches.’

Normally, the range is around 3 inches, according to the report.

A Texas judge on Wednesday denied a request for a new trial for an Army sergeant convicted of killing an armed protester during a Black Lives Matter march and set a May 9 sentencing in a case where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott has said he will seek a pardon.

Sgt. Daniel Perry faces up to life in prison for the 2020 fatal shooting of 28-year-old Garrett Foster, who was legally carrying an AK-47 rifle through downtown Austin during a summer of nationwide unrest over police killings and racial injustice.

Perry sought a retrial in part over claims of improper jury behavior during trial and deliberations. State District Judge Clifford Brown, who presided over the original trial, denied the request after a brief hearing.

A jury unanimously voted to convict Perry on April 7. The verdict prompted outrage from prominent conservatives including former Fox News star Tucker Carlson, who called the shooting an act of self-defense and criticized Abbott on the air after he didn’t come on his show.

Abbott, a former judge who has not ruled out a 2024 presidential run, tweeted the next day that ‘Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws’ and that he looked forward to signing a pardon once a recommendation hits his desk.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has already begun what legal experts say is a highly unusual and immediate review of the case on the orders of Abbott, who appoints the panel.

The governor has not said publicly how he came to his conclusion. It is not clear when the parole board will reach a decision on Perry’s case.

Perry attorney Clinton Broden declined to comment on the judge’s rejection of a retrial and the potential pardon.

Perry served in the military for more than a decade and was stationed at Fort Hood, about 70 miles north of Austin. He was working as a ride-share driver the night of the shooting and had just dropped off a customer when he turned onto a street full of protesters.

Perry claimed he acted in self-defense while attempting to get past the crowd blocking the street and said Foster pointed a rifle at him. Witnesses testified that they did not see Foster raise his weapon, and prosecutors argued that Perry could have driven away without shooting.

After the trial, the court unsealed dozens of pages of text messages and social media posts that showed Perry having hostile views toward Black Lives Matter protests. In a comment on Facebook a month before the shooting, Perry allegedly wrote, ‘It is official I am a racist because I do not agree with people acting like animals at the zoo.’

Parents and community members who attended a school board meeting in Vermont’s largest district mostly supported a decision to use the gender-nonspecific terms ‘person who produces sperm’ and ‘person who produces eggs’ in a 5th grade health class rather than the words male or female.

In the first school board meeting since a letter about the policy was distributed, all but two of more than a dozen parents who spoke praised the Essex/Westford School District for its choice.

During roughly 20-minutes allotted for public comment, all speakers kept within their 2-minute time limit and none raised their voices.

‘I am so grateful that my boys who go to school here are so much wiser and smarter and knowledgeable than I was at their age,’ said Alexis Dubief. ‘I am so grateful of the education that they are getting to understand the breadth and depth of humanity.’

The district drew criticism last month after the principal of one school in the district distributed a letter to parents and caregivers about the change in terminology. The district said the instruction will not associate puberty with any specific gender but rather be clear about the differences in bodies and how that changes the experiences of puberty.

The letter was distributed last month at a time when gender identity issues are coming to dominate public discourse in some states. More than 15 states have banned sex changes for minors as conservatives across the country have targeted transgender rights.

‘This is designed to be LGBTQIA+ affirming, and a guide to supporting all students in understanding their own bodies without separating students by identified gender,’ the Vermont district said in its statement.

Erika Sanzi, director of the group Parents Defending Education, said it learned of the policy through an online tip line shortly after the letter was distributed. She posted a a copy of it on social media, where it went viral, and the group added a copy to its website under the label ‘Indoctrination.’

‘If a person were to say, ‘I keep hearing that schools have been captured by gender ideology, what do they mean?’ I would point them to this letter and I would say this is what we mean,’ Sanzi said.

Lucy Leriche, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, said her organization encourages using gender-inclusive language and called the school board policy ‘a smart thing to do.’

Hundreds of pro-life Mainers testified against a bill that would remove most limitations on abortion in the state in an overnight, nearly 20-hour long hearing on the proposal.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills introduced the bill in January 2023 to alter the state’s law from allowing abortions after fetal viability in the case of the health or life of the mother, to allowing abortion after the point at which the fetus can survive by itself outside the womb.

During the public hearing that began Monday, more than 675 pro-lifers signed up to testify against the legislation, reportedly lining up as early as 7 a.m. for the 10 a.m. signup to speak. 

With testimonies from a multitude of pro-life and only 65 speaking in favor of the bills, the hearing lasted over 19 hours into Wednesday morning — a historically long public hearing in the state of Maine.

State Rep. Laurel Libby, who testified at the hearing, described the ‘remarkable’ movement of pro-lifers showing up to block to the bill.

‘What I’ve seen is that there is not just enthusiasm for the public hearing Monday and yesterday, but to continue the efforts moving forward and make sure that people are eager to keep reaching out to their legislators and advocating for them to kill this bill,’ Libby told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview.

Libby was the last to give a statement at 7:20 a.m., the morning after the hearing started.

‘Yesterday and today, for the past 18 hours, we have seen the heart of Maine… We’ve seen the indomitable spirit of true Mainers… Their pure intention to speak up for life and to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. This committee has forgotten the meaning of we the people and has adopted the philosophy of the tyranny of the majority,’ she said.

Libby also decried the committee’s decision to limit pro-lifers comments to one minute, while others got to speak for two minutes.

Closer to the start of the hearing, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey was asked if there should be any reasonable restrictions on abortion.

‘What I believe is that the place for which that decision to be made about how a woman exercises her reproductive choices is best trusted to the woman in consultation with a medical professional,’ Frey said. When asked if there are any legal protections for a child, Frey said ‘this is a woman making a decision about what to do with her body… There isn’t a live child that’s out at this point, that this decision is concerned with.’

Hundreds of pro-life residents stayed the night to speak out against the abortion proposal.

‘When did babies become the enemy?… How have we sunk so low to consider killing full term babies as acceptable?’ one woman said. 

‘There is no logical reason we show allow LD 1619 to pass in Maine,’ another resident said.

Zoey Hutchings from Fairfeild asked: ‘Is your life precious to you? Aren’t you glad that your mother or grandmother understood that your life was precious?… All life has value whether someone else thinks it or not.’

Anne Fowler, a minister in the Episcopal Diocese of Maine and supporter of the pro-abortion legislation, was near the start of the hearing if there’s a difference between the rights of a baby one day before and the day after it is born. ‘I measure value and rights on the basis of potential versus actuality,’ she responded. 

Despite already allowing abortion up until fetal viability, usually around 24 weeks of pregnancy, the new proposal suggests changes to ‘the standard for when an abortion may be performed after viability to when a licensed physician determines that it is necessary instead of when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.’ 

The new law also ‘removes the criminal penalties for performing an abortion without being licensed as a physician, physician assistant or advanced practice registered nurse, and for performing an abortion after viability of the fetus when it was not necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.’

It’s politically toxic for Members of Congress to approve a pay raise for themselves.

So, the House did the next best thing. It approved something that is kind of like a pay raise.

But not really.

Members of the House of Representatives earn a base salary of $174,000 a year. Those in leadership positions make $193,400. The Speaker takes home $223,500. Those salaries have stalled since 2009. 

It would take both bodies of Congress to approve a formal pay raise. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution says any pay increase can’t take effect until there’s an election in the House. That’s so lawmakers must face the music from the voters if they supported a pay increase.

So, the House is now implementing a plan which allows the House to reimburse Members for expenses they incur while in Washington, DC. House Members previously held two ‘work stations.’ One in the district. One in Washington. The new program says that lawmakers now have one ‘work station.’ Thus, they are eligible for reimbursements when on Capitol Hill. 

The House already covers the travel of lawmakers to and from Washington. The new program enables lawmakers to apply for reimbursements to cover rent, utilities and meals in Washington. The reimbursements are taxable. The House did not allocate additional money to cover expenses. The reimbursements simply come out of the kitty which the House disburses for each of the offices of all 435 members and six non-voting delegates. That money can go toward paying staff, purchasing office equipment – or for reimbursements to Members. 

One private calculation of the benefit revealed that lawmakers could potentially receive well over $30,000 in reimbursements if they exploited every option. However, the reimbursement system mirrors how federal agencies repay their employees for workplace expenses.

The House never took a roll call vote to authorize the new guidelines. On December 30 of last year, the House Administration Committee – then run by the old Democratic majority – approved updates to the Members’ Congressional Handbook for reimbursements. The panel unanimously supported the upgrade. It would be up to the Republican majority to implement the new rules. Lawmakers have just started to receive official guidance on how to submit paperwork for reimbursements. In fact, most lawmakers questioned by Fox knew little about the logistics of the program.

An aide to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said that the new language in the handbook ‘is not a policy change,’ characterizing the new provisions as providing ‘administrative clarity.’ 

Both Republicans and Democrats embraced the ‘clarity.’ 

Or, at least the chance for the House to foot some of their bills while in Washington.

‘It makes a lot of sense,’ said Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y. ‘It’s very challenging to have a mortgage, buy a home, rent here and travel and all the things that go with that.’

Lawmakers have long fretted about Congress only attracting wealthy persons to serve. A Washington, DC landlord famously denied 26-year-old freshman Rep. Maxwell Frost, D-Fla., an apartment last year because the Generation Z-er had bad credit. 

‘This ain’t meant for people who don’t already have money,’ tweeted Frost who was 25 when voters elected him.

‘Congress was out of line with traditional workplace reimbursement structures,’ said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. ‘So I support the changes that will bring us in line with what normal businesses do.’

Many House members sleep in their offices on couches and rollaway beds because housing is so expensive compared to other cities. Many members from the famous 1994 GOP class which flipped the House for the first time in 40 years made a point of sleeping in their offices. That was so voters wouldn’t perceive them as ‘going native’ in Washington.

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., always slept in his office. However, some House Speakers have argued that the Congressional couch-surfing is unbecoming to a Member of Congress. That’s to say nothing of the argument that Members are actually using a federal resource for personal purposes.

But it’s hard to argue with the finances of Members. Inflation spurred a lot of air mattress inflation over the years on Capitol Hill. 

‘A third of the Congress slept in their offices,’ said Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Calif., ‘That’s not a healthy situation.’

And, big paychecks off Capitol Hill in lobbying may tempt lawmakers to abandon office if they can’t cover their bills. That creates the ‘turnstile’ effect in Washington. That potentially creates a separate set of ethics issues.

‘There are a lot of Members who are having a hard time with expenses,’ said Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., of the reimbursement changes. ‘So I think it was probably needed.’

Some lawmakers doubt they’ll use the reimbursement system.

‘I stay in my office. It’s a very Spartan way to live up here in DC,’ said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. ‘I’m not here to socialize or to make friends.’

But like with any Congressional perquisite, there are always questions about the potential for abuse. Lawmakers must show receipts and account appropriately for the reimbursement requests. 

‘The House Office of Finance is a stickler for details,’ said Brad Fitch who tracks the inner-mechanics of Capitol Hill for the Congressional Management Foundation. ‘So they’ve got a pretty powerful financial incentive not to screw up.’

But the political sensitivity of Congressional ‘pay raises’ and other perks explains why it took the House so long to develop standards for reimbursements. Lawmakers are very jumpy about the perception that they’re receiving a benefit unavailable to the rest of the public. That’s why a Congressional pay raise is out of the question in this political environment. The House could never conjure together the votes to approve such a measure. So, they took this step instead.

Leaders on both sides of the aisle are okay with the plan. The bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress endorsed the reimbursement package. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., dismissed suggestions that the public could interpret the plan as a pay raise or a extra benefit for members.

‘It’s a reimbursement,’ said Jeffries. ‘The effort to make sure that Members are reimbursed for housing expenses has been bipartisan in nature from the very beginning.’

But Fitch says there will always be skeptics of such programs for Members.

‘Any topic about Congressional spending gets into a very radioactive political environment,’ said Fitch. ‘Every time, it’s resulted in a pretty big, messy story for the United States Congress.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., says lawmakers are ‘afraid of what the politics might be’ of covering basic expenses for lawmakers when they’re working in Washington, DC.

But Larson offered a somber assessment about the realities surrounding this issue. 

‘In this day of very partisan politics, will it be used against Members?’ asked Larson. ‘Bank on it.’