A program is being rolled out and overseen by the House of Representatives this week that is aimed at boosting transparency in the high-profile fight for control of Congress.

‘We’re excited to really ramp the program up, roll it out, as we come into the final eight weeks before the election,’ House Committee on Administration Chair Bryan Steil, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital in an interview about the program, which has been used in several election cycles.

More than a dozen House races are expected to come down to razor-thin margins in November. Democrats are fighting to win back control from the House GOP and the fight is likely to be close either way.

The House Committee on Administration is moving to boost accountability efforts at the polls for such races through the Election Observer Program.

Congressional staffers are eligible to volunteer for a training program that would set them up to be poll watchers in the upcoming election. 

They would then be sent out to districts, not including their own, if requested by a congressional candidate in a close race.

‘I think uniquely this Congress, we can raise awareness, engagement and participation in the program,’ Steil said. ‘This is a program that’s been around for some time, and it’s been a successful program. My staff has participated in it, and I think it’s an important piece of the puzzle as we work to enhance the integrity and Americans’ confidence in our elections.’

He said it is imperative to boost the program’s visibility so that candidates and incumbents running across the political spectrum in November know it is available to them.

Asked if he had any particular security concerns about this year’s elections, Steil said he was ‘frustrated’ by a lack of answers from the Biden administration in response to his probing of a June executive order aimed at using federal resources to bolster voter access.

‘The administration continues to hide the ball on the work they’re doing as it relates to President Biden’s executive order, and I think there’s areas in particular as it relates to noncitizen voting that we should work to continue to get in place,’ Steil said.

The House’s Election Observer Program is one of several election security measures Steil has used his committee gavel to focus on.

Democrats, meanwhile, have panned several key GOP-led election efforts as voter suppression. 

Congressional Democrat leaders are also opposing a short-term government funding bill that is attached to legislation mandating proof of citizenship in the voter registration process. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called the Republican plan ‘extreme.’

Steil said he hopes Democrats utilize the program as they had before, though he conceded that election integrity issues have become highly political.

‘A lot of things that did not used to be viewed as partisan in nature, in particular as it relates to election integrity, have become an attempt by the left to try to weaponize the efforts in the other direction,’ he said. ‘We’ll see how our Democratic colleagues respond to a program they participated in the past.’

‘But I am of the view that we have an opportunity to take this program and move it up to the next level, both in visibility and in participation.’

CNN ‘passed’ its test in that came in the form of the first presidential date in June between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Opinions are divided on whether CNN passed or failed in its interview of Vice President Kamala Harris. (Having helped moderate five GOP presidential primary debates and being the only non-network individual in the debate prep rooms, the grade goes to the network involved, not the host. Debates and big interviews are collective efforts by the organizations hosting them.)

Tuesday ABC is carrying a heavy burden. To my knowledge, the network does not have on its payroll even one individual of significant stature as a host, contributor or executive who is a likely Trump voter. This means in a country that polling portrays as evenly divided between ‘blue’ and ‘red,’ inputs from Trump supporters into the debate preparation process are almost certainly unlikely to occur and thus it is extremely unlikely for the debate to feature questions that such voters believe are relevant and indeed crucial to the choice before the country.

How could ABC get to high ground from which the questions vetted by its debate team and posed by hosts David Muir and Linsey Davis don’t result in a ‘Bud Lite’-level meltdown for its brand and the brands of its parent company Disney? The surest path is to lean heavily on Commander-in-Chief questions. Presidents don’t pass laws. They either sign what Congress sends them or veto such bills. Hypotheticals about whether a candidate would sign this or that hypothetical bill are just hobby horses for ideologues posing the queries.

A president does indisputably have control over America’s national security and the deployment and use of its military. The primary relevant examples of this power relevant are (1) President Biden’s decision to pull American troops out of Afghanistan in the way that he did with the consequences that pullout had and (2) support or refusal of support for Israel in its multi-front war with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and of course Iran (the head of the snake’ as many supporters of the Jewish State deem the mullahs in Tehran.) A third obvious question in this category is whether former President Trump did the right thing when he ordered Qasem Soleimani killed in Iraq on January 3, 2020.

There are many other extremely relevant questions in this area including whether American military force will be deployed to defend our treaty ally the Philippines in the escalating confrontations with China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy or to defend the island state of Taiwan if it is attacked by China?

Another obvious area is America’s southern border. What both candidates will do about the more than 10 million migrants who crossed into the country without an invitation in the past three-and-a-half years should be on the agenda.

Because the enforcement of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 rests with the president and his or her executive branch appointees and the Biden/Harris Administration has proposed new, controversial regulations about Title IX, an obvious and pressing question should be whether and why the candidates support biological boys who identify as girls should be allowed to compete in scholastic sports?

While we know the positions of both candidates on abortion, it is not a priority question but as FDA-approved drugs that result in abortion have been much litigated, a question in that area would not be inappropriate but, if asked, should be matched with one about when such drugs become inappropriate to prescribe? Planned Parenthood states on its website that ‘In general, you can have a medication abortion up to 77 days (11 weeks) after the first day of your last period.’ The organization adds ‘If it’s been 78 days or more since the first day of your last period, you can have an in-clinic abortion to end your pregnancy.’ A question about ensuring the interstate availability of this federally approved medication is not particularly germane as the Supreme Court has ruled on a case involving the medication’s current availability but no doubt liberals and Democrats would welcome a question about these drugs and it’s not a wholly hypothetical one. The next president has authority over the Health and Human Services Department which controls the FDA just like they will have authority over the Department of Education which enforces Title IX. These are questions for presidents.

So is the forthcoming response from a new president to the explosion of anti-Semitism on campuses.  So is the pace and success of the massive expenditures of the already legislated Green New Deal provisions. So is the future of nuclear energy and permit reform to expedite fossil fuel extraction and export. If a president can unilaterally act in an area, it ought to be on the table.

All of these questions are legitimate. Will any of them get asked? Asking both candidates how they assess each other’s choice of a running mate would be interesting. There are a hundred fair and tough questions to pose.

If ABC produces an equal number of questions that strike both red and blue America as pointed but fair, and as many that are difficult for former President Trump to answer as are posed in that category to Vice President Harris, the network, and by extension Disney, will pass. If not, the whole country and its electorate will have rendered a verdict of ‘fail’ on both by Wednesday.

Hugh Hewitt is host of ‘The Hugh Hewitt Show,’ heard weekday mornings 6am to 9am ET on the Salem Radio Network, and simulcast on Salem News Channel. Hugh wakes up America on over 400 affiliates nationwide, and on all the streaming platforms where SNC can be seen. He is a frequent guest on the Fox News Channel’s news roundtable hosted by Bret Baier weekdays at 6pm ET. A son of Ohio and a graduate of Harvard College and the University of Michigan Law School, Hewitt has been a Professor of Law at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law since 1996 where he teaches Constitutional Law. Hewitt launched his eponymous radio show from Los Angeles in 1990.  Hewitt has frequently appeared on every major national news television network, hosted television shows for PBS and MSNBC, written for every major American paper, has authored a dozen books and moderated a score of Republican candidate debates, most recently the November 2023 Republican presidential debate in Miami and four Republican presidential debates in the 2015-16 cycle. Hewitt focuses his radio show and his column on the Constitution, national security, American politics and the Cleveland Browns and Guardians. Hewitt has interviewed tens of thousands of guests from Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Republican Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump over his 40 years in broadcast, and this column previews the lead story that will drive his radio/ TV show today.

Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 campaign hired a new climate director who has frequently said the effects of climate change are part of what’s stopping her from having children.

Camila Thorndike, who previously worked in the Senate managing the climate portfolio of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was given the title of climate engagement director for the Harris for President campaign in September 2024, according to her LinkedIn page. 

Prior to joining the Harris campaign, Thorndike said on several occasions that she considers climate change a factor when deciding whether to have kids.

‘I was 15 when I first saw the climate ‘hockey stick’ graph. I realized that this skyrocketing arrow of temperature would take place in my lifetime. All of the big milestones of life that I was looking forward to would be in the context of this big global crisis. It led to the question of whether or not to have kids – which is still a big question for me – where I would put down roots, what my family would do,’ Thorndike said in 2018 when she was the D.C. campaign director for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Again in November 2019, Thorndike described it as an ‘ethical question that keeps me up at night.’

‘I have always been someone who enjoys children and loves the idea of a family, and that’s why I have wrestled with this, because my logical mind and the facts of the future I can see bearing down on us are not supportive of the life I would want for them,’ she told Yahoo News at the time. 

During an appearance on the ‘My Climate Journey’ podcast in August 2022, a show hosted by Jason Jacobs and Cody Simms for people seeking to better understand climate change, Thorndike again made a connection between the decision to have children and what it might look like in the future amid climate change. 

‘I plotted my own lifetime against that and realized that around the time that I would, especially, be considering having kids or whatever, in around my 30s, we would start to see the escalation of this crisis. And so that was when I realized that, at the time, the grownups were not coming to save us and my generation would have to fight to take the wheel.’

Featured in a Washington Post article about whether people should not have kids due to climate change, the new Harris campaign official said she worried about her potential kids ‘suffering’ from climate-related issues.  

‘It’s coming partly from a place of love for my hypothetical child,’ she said. ‘I want to protect them from suffering. Not that life is ever free from suffering, but what of the joys and peace and goodness that make me happiest to be alive will be accessible in 20, 30, 40 years?’

Harris acknowledged this idea during a discussion at the ‘Fight for Our Freedoms’ event in September 2023.

‘I’ve heard young leaders talk with me about a term they’ve coined called ‘climate anxiety,’ which is fear of the future and the unknown of whether it makes sense for you to even think about having children, whether it makes sense for you to think about aspiring to buy a home,’ Harris said in a clip that has resurfaced since she became the 2024 Democratic nominee.

A clip of the comment, shared by Donald Trump Jr. in July, prompted backlash from critics of Harris.

Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, who is now former President Trump’s running mate, wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter: ‘It’s almost like these people don’t want young people starting families or something. Really weird stuff.’

‘Shamala is an extinctionist. The natural extension of her philosophy would be a de facto holocaust for all of humanity!’ wrote billionaire and X owner Elon Musk on his platform. 

House Republicans’ plan to avert a partial government shutdown and crack down on election security surpassed a key hurdle Monday evening, though it’s headed for an uncertain fate in a chamber-wide vote this week.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is aiming to pass legislation combining a six-month extension of fiscal year 2024’s federal funding levels, called a continuing resolution (CR), and a House GOP bill to mandate proof of citizenship in the voter registration process.

The plan passed the House Rules Committee, 9-4, late Monday, bundled with unrelated bills – the final step for legislation before a House floor vote. 

House lawmakers are expected to hold a procedural vote allowing for debate on the bill Tuesday, with final passage teed up for Wednesday.

But it’s not clear yet whether the bill will survive a chamber-wide vote, with at least five House Republicans publicly opposing it as of Monday evening.

Johnson only holds a majority of four votes, meaning he will likely need Democratic support for it to pass.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree a CR is needed to give congressional appropriators more time to negotiate fiscal year 2025 federal spending and to avoid a partial government shutdown weeks before Election Day. The House has passed four of 12 GOP-led appropriations bills so far, while the Democrat-led Senate has not passed any. 

House GOP leaders are hoping to use the fiscal pressure to force Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., into holding a vote on the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a bill authored by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and backed by former President Trump. 

But Democratic leaders generally see the SAVE Act as a nonstarter. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., called it ‘partisan and extreme’ in a letter to House Democrats on Monday, and the White House issued a veto threat.

Schumer wrote to colleagues on Sunday, ‘As I have said before, the only way to get things done is in a bipartisan way. Despite Republican bluster, that is how we’ve handled every funding bill in the past, and this time should be no exception. We will not let poison pills or Republican extremism put funding for critical programs at risk.’

Congressional leaders have until Sept. 30 to find a path forward or risk nonessential government programs being paused and potentially thousands of federal employees furloughed.

Meanwhile, Johnson has little room for error in his own conference.

The speaker could get some help from Democratic defectors, however. Five House Democrats broke from their party to vote for the SAVE Act earlier this year.

A CR through March would mean the government funding debate will be taken up by a new White House – run by either Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris – and a new Congress.