The Sunshine Protection Act passed the chamber by unanimous consent. The bill would still need to pass the House and be signed by President Joe Biden to become law. If the measure clears Congress and is signed into law, it would mean no more falling back every year in the fall.
CNN has reached out to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office for comment on when or if the House will take up the bill and did not immediately receive a response.
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a sponsor of the legislation, said he doesn’t have any assurance the House will take it up, but “it’s an idea whose time has come.”
Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who was presiding at the time of the bill’s consideration and who represents Arizona, a state that doesn’t observe Daylight Saving Time, could be heard on the mic saying “Ooh, I love it.” Following its passage, she let out a “Yes!”
The bill has bipartisan backing including several Republican and Democratic cosponsors.
“You’ll see it’s an eclectic collection of members of the United States Senate in favor of what we’ve just done here in the Senate, and that’s to pass a bill to make Daylight Savings Time permanent,” said Rubio in remarks on the Senate floor. “Just this past weekend, we all went through that biannual ritual of changing the clock back and forth and the disruption that comes with it. And one has to ask themselves after a while why do we keep doing it?”
“If we can get this passed, we don’t have to keep doing this stupidity anymore,” added Rubio.
Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, expressed support for the bill after being told it had passed.
“I just think the extra hour at the end of the day consistently is better than having it dark when kids go to school and dark when kids get home,” he said.
Rubio noted that the bill delays implementation to November 2023, because, he said, the transportation industry has already built out schedules on the existing time and asked for additional months to make the adjustment.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the lead Democratic sponsor, said Tuesday ahead of passage of the bill that “this would give us a chance for Americans all across the country to be rid of fall back and make Daylights Savings Time permanent and to add a little sunlight into most people’s lives.”
This story has been updated with additional developments Tuesday.
CNN’s Lauren Fox, Clare Foran and Ted Barrett contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON, March 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation that would make daylight saving time permanent starting in 2023, ending the twice-annual changing of clocks in a move promoted by supporters advocating brighter afternoons and more economic activity.
The Senate approved the measure, called the Sunshine Protection Act, unanimously by voice vote. The House of Representatives, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, still must pass the bill before it can go to President Joe Biden to sign. The White House has not said whether Biden supports it.
On Sunday, most of the United States resumed daylight saving time, moving ahead one hour. The United States will resume standard time in November.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Senator Marco Rubio, one of the bill’s sponsors, said after input from airlines and broadcasters that supporters agreed that the change would not take place until November 2023.
The change would help enable children to play outdoors later and reduce seasonal depression, according to supporters.
“I know this is not the most important issue confronting America but it is one of those issues that there is a lot of agreement. … If we can get this passed, we don’t have to do this stupidity anymore,” Rubio added. “Pardon the pun, but this is an idea whose time has come.”
About 30 states since 2015 have introduced legislation to end the twice-yearly changing of clocks, with some states proposing to do it only if neighboring states do the same.
The House Energy and Commerce committee held a hearing on the issue this month. Representative Frank Pallone, the committee’s chairman, said that “the loss of that one hour of sleep seems to impact us for days afterwards. It also can cause havoc on the sleeping patterns of our kids and our pets.”
Pallone backs ending the clock switching but has not decided whether to support daylight or standard time as the permanent choice.
Pallone cited a 2019 poll that found that 71% of Americans prefer to no longer switch their clocks twice a year.
Supporters say the change could prevent a slight uptick in car crashes that typically occurs around the time changes and point to studies showing a small increase in the rate of heart attacks and strokes soon after the time change.
“It has real repercussions on our economy and our daily lives,” said Senator Ed Markey, another leading sponsor.
Supporters argue it could help businesses such as golf courses that could draw more use with more evening daylight.
The use of daylight saving time has been in place in nearly all of the United States since the 1960s after being first tried in 1918. Year-round daylight savings time was adopted in 1973 in a bid to reduce energy use because of an oil embargo and repealed a year later.
The bill would allow Arizona and Hawaii, which do not observe daylight saving time, to remain on standard time.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by David Shepardson
Editing by Will Dunham and Chizu Nomiyama
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Senate Bill 377 passed Friday afternoon by 32-20, according to a tweet from the Senate Press Office. The bill — which passed along party lines with Republicans in support of the measure and Democrats against it — now moves to the Georgia state House for consideration.
Georgia is among a number of states with Republican-controlled legislatures that have sought to legislate what can be taught in schools.
The text of the bill defines nine “divisive concepts” that would not be allowed to be taught if it becomes law. Among them are the ideas that one race or ethnicity is inherently superior to another; the concept that the United States and Georgia are “fundamentally or systemically racist”; and the practice of teachers making students feel demeaned or guilty because of their races, skin colors or ethnicities.
While the bill would ban these concepts in curriculums and training programs, the language in the bill does not “prohibit the discussion of divisive concepts, as part of a larger course of instruction, in an objective manner and without endorsement.”
According to the text of the bill, it also does not “prohibit the use of curriculum that addresses topics of slavery, racial or ethnic oppression, racial or ethnic segregation, or racial or ethnic discrimination, including topics relating to the enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in such oppression, segregation, and discrimination.”
A similar bill, House Bill 1084, known as the “Protect Students First Act,” has passed the Georgia House and has been sent to the state Senate. That measure would prohibit local school boards and administrators from discriminating “on the basis of race” by promoting or encouraging nine “divisive concepts” that are almost identical to those in SB 377.
The chamber is first voting on several amendments backed by GOP senators that are expected to fail followed by final passage of the bill.
The Senate is under pressure to act ahead of a looming deadline on Friday when government funding is set to expire. The House of Representatives passed the sweeping bill late Wednesday evening.
A shutdown is not expected to happen, however, as both sides signal they do not want that scenario to play out.
As part of the effort to prevent a shutdown, the House also passed on Wednesday night a stopgap bill to extend government funding through Tuesday.
The Senate is expected to take up and pass the short-term funding extension at some point in addition to the broader spending bill so that congressional clerks have time to finish processing the text of the larger bill before sending it to President Joe Biden for his signature.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a floor speech Thursday morning, touted the $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine in the omnibus and pointed to it as a pressing reason for the Senate to quickly pass the massive spending bill.
“The people of Ukraine need our immediate help and this omnibus is the quickest and most direct way of getting them the help fast,” he said on the Senate floor.
“The Ukrainian people are fighting for their lives and fighting for the survival of their young democracy. Congress has a moral obligation to stand behind them as they resist the evils of Vladimir Putin and his campaign of carnage,” he said.
But the New York Democrat said that he is “deeply disappointed” that the government funding package won’t include Covid-19 aid, after Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to strip out nearly $16 billion in funds for pandemic response of the bill Wednesday due to a Democratic revolt over how the funding would be offset.
“I am deeply disappointed that the administration’s request for more Covid funding failed to make it into the House bill but we’re going to keep fighting to make sure we get that money approved as soon as possible,” he said.
Democratic leaders attempted to offset Covid relief money after pushback from Republicans who have argued there needs to be a full accounting of already allocated money first. But a number of House Democrats revolted over the plan to offset the money, arguing it would hurt their states by taking away funds already promised to them.
The House is planning to move a standalone bill on Covid funding, but it’s expected to face GOP opposition in the Senate.
McConnell criticized Democrats over the episode in remarks on the Senate floor Thursday.
“Until 24 hours ago, this compromise was also going to reprogram money away from Democrats wasteful spending spree that neglected Covid needs, and reallocate it to vaccines and treatments for the American people,” McConnell said. “But House Democrats mutinied against Speaker Pelosi. The far left would rather preserve state and local bureaucrats’ giant slush funds, then fund vaccines and therapeutics for our citizens. So, the Covid component has fallen out.”
What’s in the bill
The sweeping government spending bill, known on Capitol Hill as the omnibus, is the product of months of negotiations, but the sprawling legislative text, which runs 2,741 pages, was not released until around 1:30 a.m. ET Wednesday, just hours before House leaders initially planned to try to pass it through the chamber, leaving little time for lawmakers to review the measure.
That has led to complaints from lawmakers who feel rushed and unable to adequately vet the measure before a final vote.
There is widespread support from both parties for the infusion of much-needed aid to Ukraine, however, as the country fights back against a deadly and unprovoked Russian assault. That dynamic is expected to help overcome other objections from some lawmakers to the overall legislative package.
The omnibus consists of a series of fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills to keep the government running in addition to emergency supplemental funding for Ukraine.
Of the $13.6 billion in aid to Ukraine, money is set aside for humanitarian, defense and economic assistance. The bill also includes provisions for sanctions enforcement.
The emergency aid package sets aside $4 billion to help refugees who have fled or were displaced within the country and increase the President’s authority for defense equipment transfer to Ukraine and other allied nations to $3 billion, according to a fact sheet from the House Appropriations Committee.
Among a wide range of other provisions, the omnibus will also reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and implement cybersecurity initiatives, Pelosi and Schumer announced Wednesday.
This story and headline have been updated with additional developments Thursday.
CNN’s Manu Raju and Lauren Fox contributed to this report.
The final vote was overwhelmingly bipartisan 79-19. The bill now heads to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.
The Postal Service Reform Act — which cleared the House last month by 342-92 — would require retired postal employees to enroll in Medicare when eligible, while dropping a previous mandate that forced the agency to cover its health care costs years in advance. Those two measures would save the USPS nearly $50 billion over the next decade, according to the House Oversight Committee. The legislation would also require the USPS to create an online dashboard with local and national delivery time data.
Ahead of the vote on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer touted that once the legislation passes, postal reform will finally be “signed, sealed and delivered for the American people.”
“We all know that when the post office is forced to cut hours of operation or delivery routes or lay off workers, the rest of us are worse off,” Schumer said. “Thankfully, for the past few months, Democrats and Republicans have been working together in good faith to reform some of the most troubled parts of the Postal Service.”
Established in 1775 to promote the free exchange of ideas across the colonies, the Postal Service is among the country’s oldest government institutions — yet it operates with few of the financial benefits of being a federal agency while still bearing many of the costs.
Unlike other government agencies, the USPS generally does not receive taxpayer funding, and instead must rely on revenue from stamps and package deliveries to support itself.
And unlike private courier services such as UPS and FedEx, the USPS cannot excise unprofitable routes because Congress stipulates that the Postal Service delivers to all homes in America — including a remote community in the Grand Canyon, where the mail is delivered by mule. Postal Service pricing must be approved by the Postal Regulatory Commission, an independent government agency.
While lawmakers from both parties have hailed the legislation as an important step for the USPS, Paul Steidler, a Postal Service expert at the Lexington Institute, told CNN it doesn’t go nearly far enough.
“The bill is woefully insufficient because it does nothing to improve mail service. It takes the pressure off of the Postal Service to better understand and to reduce its costs. And it doesn’t sufficiently empower the Postal Regulatory Commission, which right now is very small and has very tiny resources compared to the Postal Service.”
Sen. Gary Peters, a Democrat from Michigan who introduced the Senate version of the USPS legislation, said Tuesday in floor remarks that by approving this bill, “this body can show the nation that Congress can indeed build consensus. We can work on a bipartisan basis and get things done for the American people.”
Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, who co-sponsored the Senate bill, added that “saving the Post Office is the right thing to do”
“Neither of us got exactly what we wanted, both had to make concessions,” Portman said. “But we are actually doing the right thing for the country here to save the Post Office.”
CORRECTION: The story has been corrected to specify that US Postal Services prices are approved and overseen by the Postal Regulatory Commission.
The Jan. 6 select committee filing that set off a siren in the political world landed with a thud among Senate Republicans on Thursday.
The House panel said it had “a good-faith basis for concluding” former President TrumpDonald TrumpJan. 6 panel claims Trump ‘engaged in criminal conspiracy’ Capitol riot defendant pleads guilty to seditious conspiracy, agrees to cooperate The Memo: Boebert’s antics blasted as another twist in politics’ downward spiral MORE and members of his campaign “engaged in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States,” and that Trump tried to obstruct Congress’s formal counting of the Electoral College vote.
The filing marked a bombshell moment for the committee, offering a preview into the panel’s thinking about the former president months into its investigation of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, when a mob of his supporters breached the Capitol.
But Senate Republicans, many of whom have been skeptical of the House panel, shrugged off the revelation —or said they missed it altogether.
“I’m aware of the reporting on it. I haven’t seen the filing or anything around it, and so I just really don’t have anything for you on that,” said Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneMcConnell, Scott face off over GOP’s agenda GOP senators push back hard on Trump’s praise of Putin GOP senator faces challenge on Trump credentials MORE (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican.
Asked about the filing, Sen. Kevin CramerKevin John CramerPartisan cracks emerge over how to implement T infrastructure law McConnell, Scott face off over GOP’s agenda The Hill’s 12:30 Report – Presented by Facebook – Biden announces Supreme Court pick amid unfolding Ukrainian crisis MORE (R-N.D.), who Trump helped recruit for his 2018 Senate bid, said he “didn’t see that” before pivoting to President BidenJoe BidenBiden hails UN vote: ‘Lays bare Putin’s isolation’ Overnight Defense & National Security — US tries to turn down the dial on Russia Johns Hopkins doctor says children need to get vaccinated against COVID-19 MORE.
“The current president does so many … things every day I can hardly worry about the last one,” he said, as he left the Capitol for the week.
The filing from the House select committee is tied to the panel’s legal battle to force John Eastman, the lawyer charged with drafting Trump’s strategy for the Jan. 6 certification, to turn over documents. Eastman had filed a lawsuit to try to block the committee’s subpoena, arguing that it was privileged in part because of his legal work for Trump.
The committee’s filing aren’t formal charges, and no former U.S. president has been charged with a crime. But the House panel does plan to release a report of its findings, which could be formally referred to the Justice Department for potential prosecution.
It’s hardly the first time Trump-focused drama has ricocheted back around to Senate Republicans, many of whom are eager to keep the focus on Biden, and not the former president, heading into the November election when they are optimistic about their chances of winning back the majority.
Trump faced pushback from some senators earlier this week over his warm rhetoric toward Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinUS set to sanction more Russian oligarchs: report Biden hails UN vote: ‘Lays bare Putin’s isolation’ Substitute teacher suspended for remarks supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine MORE. Senate Republicans broke with the Republican National Committee (RNC) resolution last month censuring GOP Reps. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyThe Memo: Boebert’s antics blasted as another twist in politics’ downward spiral McCarthy criticizes GOP members who spoke at white nationalist conference Pompeo slams Taylor-Greene for ‘playing footsie’ with ‘anti-Semitic neo-Nazis’ MORE (Wyo.) and Adam KinzingerAdam Daniel KinzingerThe Memo: Boebert’s antics blasted as another twist in politics’ downward spiral House passes resolution backing Ukraine; Three Republicans vote ‘no’ McCarthy criticizes GOP members who spoke at white nationalist conference MORE (Ill.) and referring to Jan. 6 as “legitimate political discourse.”
And they’ve seen a steady churn of legal drama that they’ve tried to parse to figure out what it could mean for Trump and their party when he’s still widely considered to be the frontrunner for the 2024 nomination.
But Senate Republicans have been wary for months of the House Jan. 6 committee. Six GOP senators voted last year in support of a failed effort to start an independent commission to probe the Jan. 6 attack. But most Republicans warned that a probe could be used against the party during the 2022 election by keeping Jan. 6, 2021 and Trump in a spotlight.
Sen. Mike BraunMichael BraunOn The Money — Fed puts strict limits on trades by top officials Biden signs bill to extend funding, avoid government shutdown The Hill’s Morning Report – One day, two continents, words of war MORE (R-Ind.) said on Thursday that he had only heard about the court filing from another reporter.
“I just heard about it now,” Braun said. “I think we’ll have that kind of thing be highlighted here until the time Trump announces whether he’s going to run or not. …To be honest I don’t pay much attention to that.”
Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamGraham offers Senate measure urging Putin to be investigated for war crimes DOJ launches team to enforce sanctions on Russian oligarchs Overnight Defense & National Security — Russia expected to escalate war with Ukraine MORE (R-S.C.), who has remained close to Trump, also cast doubt on any Justice Department case that could stem from a potential referral from the committee. If the panel makes a referral to the Justice Department, it would then have to determine whether to move forward.
“I don’t see anything coming out of this committee not tainted by politics,” Graham said.
WASHINGTON — For weeks, as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia signaled he was moving closer to invading Ukraine, members of Congress in both political parties vowed that the Senate would pass a “mother of all sanctions” bill targeting Moscow that would prove the overwhelming, bipartisan American resolve to stand with Kyiv against Russian aggression.
But on Thursday evening, with the threat of invasion looming ever more acutely, senators could muster only the legislative equivalent of a strongly worded letter scolding Mr. Putin for a “provocative and reckless” military buildup on Ukraine’s border, passing a nonbinding resolution quickly and without debate before leaving Washington for a weeklong break.
Some senators praised the symbolic action, taken with a voice vote, as proof that the Senate could unite to deliver a strong message of support at a perilous moment.
But it was a striking backtracking, born of deep disagreements between the two parties over when and how to impose sanctions on top Russian officials and banks, and resistance by the Biden administration to acting before Mr. Putin invaded. The result was legislative paralysis on a measure that — at least conceptually — seemed to have enjoyed overwhelming support. Few senators had even questioned whether approving additional sanctions on Moscow would act as a deterrent against further incursions by Russia into Ukraine.
“Both parties are saying the same thing about wanting the same result,” said Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, who had been negotiating the bill on behalf of his party. “It’s just, what action gets us that result?”
Republicans and Democrats squabbled about that question for weeks. In January, Democrats scuttled an effort by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, to impose sanctions on Nord Stream 2, the Russian gas pipeline, arguing that imposing such measures before an invasion would give up key leverage that United States officials needed in diplomatic talks with Russia. Pressing a case made by the White House, they also said it would alienate Germany when demonstrating European unity against Moscow’s aggression was crucial. They all but promised they would coalesce around a new sanctions bill.
The measure under discussion in recent weeks by Mr. Risch and Senator Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who is the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, was supposed to be what they called the “mother of all sanctions” packages. It would have slapped immediate penalties on Russian officials and entities, and additional ones should Mr. Putin invade.
Understand Russia’s Relationship With the West
The tension between the regions is growing and Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly willing to take geopolitical risks and assert his demands.
The bill also would have authorized President Biden to use the Lend-Lease Act of 1941 to lend military equipment to Ukraine, on top of the $2.7 billion in security assistance the United States has committed to Kyiv since 2014.
For weeks, senators used language such as “fine-tuning” and “one-yard line” to describe how close they were to reaching a deal. Mr. Menendez suggested that senators might even plow over objections from the White House to imposing sanctions before an invasion, a move that Republicans had pushed for but the Biden administration had lobbied hard to head off.
“They’re not enthralled with the idea,” Mr. Menendez told reporters about the White House. “But I have suggested to them that a strong bipartisan response strengthens their hand.”
But in the end, according to aides familiar with the negotiations, the intractable disagreements that doomed Mr. Cruz’s legislation also snarled the bipartisan negotiations. Democrats balked at imposing such broad sanctions before an invasion, amid fierce resistance from the Treasury Department, and Republicans insisted on doing so.
As the talks wore on with no resolution, prominent backers of a sanctions package — including Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader — began to argue that Mr. Biden could unilaterally impose sanctions without congressional action.
By Tuesday, eyeing the coming recess and the decaying state of negotiations, Senate Republicans unveiled their own sanctions legislation that also would have provided the Ukrainian government with an additional $500 million in military financing.
Mr. Menendez denounced the move as “partisan posturing,” and said the proposal was “largely a reflection of what Democrats had already agreed to.”
“A partisan victory is not worth a message of division from Washington, which only benefits Putin,” he said.
Despite the partisan bickering over how best to proceed, there has been little division in the Senate over whether additional sanctions could change Mr. Putin’s behavior.
Even Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri, who has argued that allowing Ukraine to join NATO would strain the security posture of the United States at a time when it should be focused on China, endorsed imposing additional sanctions.
“If they get to a point where their financial system is seriously impaired, I think that that will absolutely send a message,” Mr. Hawley said in a brief interview. “In the new era we’re entering in Europe, we’re going to have to do more with less.”
Only Senators Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who has long opposed the use of sanctions, and Bernie Sanders, independent of Vermont, have publicly opposed the proposed bill.
“The sanctions against Russia that would be imposed as a consequence of its actions and Russia’s threatened response to those sanctions could result in massive economic upheaval — with impacts on energy, banking, food and the day-to-day needs of ordinary people throughout the entire world,” Mr. Sanders said in a speech from the Senate floor last week.
That argument has also been adopted by some progressives in the House.
A Russian incursion, however, would most likely only rally more support to impose sanctions, though both the House and Senate are slated on be out on recess until the last week of February. It would also eliminate the dispute over timing of the sanctions that appears to have hamstrung Senate negotiators: whether to impose sanctions before an invasion.
“I can tell you this,” Mr. Risch said. “If there’s an invasion, there is going to be a lot of support for this bill.”
The Senate on Tuesday narrowly confirmed Dr. Robert Califf as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, a key federal agency that has been without a permanent chief for more than a yearlong stretch of the coronavirus pandemic.
The vote was 50-to-46, with six Republicans crossing the aisle to support him while five Democrats opposed him. One senator voted present.
In recent weeks, Dr. Califf’s odds of a second confirmation looked increasingly long as opposition mounted over concerns about how he would respond to the opioid epidemic and the agency’s handling of abortion drug rules. The White House responded by trying to rally support in Congress and among other allies, with mainstream medical societies and a bipartisan group of six former F.D.A. commissioners coming to Dr. Califf’s defense.
Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, was one of a handful of G.O.P. senators who backed Dr. Califf and offset some Democrats’ opposition. On Tuesday, Mr. Burr called on other senators to confirm Dr. Califf, saying the F.D.A. had gone 391 days without a permanent leader.
“I urge my colleagues to support Dr. Califf’s nomination because he will provide the leadership needed to promote today’s biomedical advancements and help to pave the way for tomorrow’s innovation,” Mr. Burr said.
Despite some Republican support, senators in both parties, ranging from liberal Democrats leery of his ties to the pharmaceutical industry to conservative Republicans in lock step with the anti-abortion movement, posed formidable opposition.
By contrast, Dr. Califf breezed into the commissioner role in 2016 in a vote of 89 to 4, with strong support from both sides of the aisle. Some of the headwinds he has faced since President Biden nominated him in November are from the same Democratic senators who opposed him six years ago. Back then, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, voiced concerns about Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry amid the opioid epidemic that by 2016 had already killed thousands.
On Friday, Mr. Manchin called on Mr. Biden to withdraw the nomination in an opinion essay, noting that while Dr. Califf pledged to make changes the last time he was commissioner, the F.D.A. approved five new opioids in 2016 and 2017.
“I have never been more profoundly confident of a vote I’m going to cast than I am right now,” Mr. Manchin said in a fiery floor speech on Monday, directly placing partial blame for the worsening epidemic on Dr. Califf. Opposition to his nomination, Mr. Manchin added, would “send a message to this administration, to our president, that we need a new direction at the F.D.A.”
“We need people who want to protect us,” he concluded, “not people who allow drugs to destroy us.”
Just before the vote on Tuesday, Senator Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, denounced the F.D.A.’s role in becoming the “country’s biggest pill pusher” and said Dr. Califf did little to address the problem in his previous stint as commissioner.
“There was no real commitment to reforming the F.D.A. or to learning from the mistakes that enabled this public health crisis,” Mr. Markey said.
Dr. Califf also faced pressure from abortion foes over the F.D.A.’s risk-management policies related to abortion medications. The influential Susan B. Anthony List organization, which opposes abortion, has canvassed lawmakers about changes made during Dr. Califf’s prior tenure as commissioner that eased access to medication abortion pills.
During a Senate hearing in December, Dr. Califf expressed confidence in the agency’s ability to handle decisions about the medications again. Two days after that hearing, the F.D.A. announced that women could receive the pills by mail after a telehealth appointment, eliminating a requirement for an in-person evaluation.
The Susan B. Anthony List announced that it would “score” the vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination, meaning it will be considered in the organization’s assessments for lawmakers’ “pro-life scorecard.” Republicans up for re-election often seek the group’s endorsement.
Senator Steve Daines, Republican of Montana, spoke in opposition before the vote, criticizing Dr. Califf’s role in the abortion medication changes.
“Dr. Califf has refused to distance himself from the F.D.A. decision to abandon vulnerable pregnant women to the reckless and predatory actions of the abortion industry,” Mr. Daines said.
Dr. Califf’s backers argued that the agency was long overdue for permanent leadership, particularly as the agency wrestles with the review of coronavirus vaccines for young children on top of other health crises.
The Coronavirus Pandemic: Key Things to Know
Card 1 of 4
N.Y.C.’s vaccine mandate. New York City fired about 1,430 workers for failing to comply with its vaccine mandate. The figure represents less than 1 percent of the city’s work force, but it is likely the nation’s largest mass termination of municipal employees in response to such a mandate.
“Dr. Califf’s previous service in this role, his career as one of the nation’s leading research scientists, gives him the experience to take on this challenge,” said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
“It is critically important to have confirmed leadership at the F.D.A. in the middle of the pandemic,” Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House deputy press secretary, said on Monday. She underscored the meetings and phone calls Dr. Califf, the White House and their allies had undertaken to shore up support for his confirmation.
The agency plays a key role as gatekeeper to the vaccines, tests and treatments Americans have access to, and regulates food, drugs, cosmetics and tobacco products that account for 20 cents of each dollar of U.S. consumer spending.
The incoming commissioner will have plenty of work to do. The agency is facing high-profile decisions on e-cigarette marketing applications, with tobacco opponents watching in concern over the persistent lure of youth vaping. Lawmakers are eager to see changes in how the agency fast-tracks drugs to the market after the controversial approval of the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. And the agency has a lengthy backlog of foreign inspections to contend with, as roughly 80 percent of active drug ingredients come in from overseas.
Dr. Califf spent most of his career at Duke University, where he served as a professor of medicine and founding director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute. He led numerous clinical trials in cardiology, gained experience working with the pharmaceutical industry and drew widespread respect in the field of medicine.
That standing is crucial, said Dr. David J. Skorton, president of the Association of American Medical Colleges.
“The decisions that are made by an F.D.A. commissioner or the F.D.A. in general are not always going to please everybody,” Dr. Skorton said. “They are very, very difficult decisions,” he said. Noting that he had followed Dr. Califf’s career for decades, Dr. Skorton described him as “the person for the hour.”
The Florida Senate Education Committee passed a controversial bill on Tuesday that would bar school districts from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity. The Parental Rights in Education bill, commonly referred to the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by its critics, would apply to such topics in primary grade levels, as well as in cases where the discussions are deemed “not age-appropriate.”
The bill, proposed by Republican State Senator Dennis Baxley, would extend to student support services, including counseling, and would require school district personnel to give parents all information related to a student’s “mental, emotional or physical health or well-being,” unless it’s believed that such disclosure would result in abuse. Parents would be able to sue districts that do not follow these requirements.
The bill’s purpose, according to its text, is to “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children.”
The bill must be considered by two more Florida Senate committees, which could make changes, before it can be presented to the full chamber and then to the Florida House. If Florida legislators pass the bill, it would go into effect on July 1, with all school district plans having to be updated by June 30, 2023.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who supports the bill, said at a roundtable in Miami on Monday that he doesn’t approve of “injecting these concepts about choosing your gender” at schools.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis
Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
“We’ve seen instances of students being told by different folks in school, ‘Oh, don’t worry. Don’t pick your gender yet. Do all this other stuff.’ They won’t tell the parents about these discussions that are happening,” DeSantis said. “That is entirely inappropriate. Schools need to be teaching kids to read, to write. They need to them them science, history. We need more civics.”
DeSantis said he doesn’t think such conversations are “going on in large numbers,” but that he wants “to make sure that our schools are really focusing on the basics.”
“We don’t want them to be engines to be putting things like the CRT [critical race theory] that we talked about, things that are divisive and are not accurate of course when you start talking about some of the stuff that they’re teaching with it, and making sure that we’re really focusing on the basics,” he said.
A 2019 survey from The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that the school climate in Florida is “not safe” for most LGBTQ students as it is.
The vast majority of LGBTQ youth who responded to the survey said they regularly heard anti-LGBTQ remarks in schools, and about a quarter had experienced physical harassment at school. But 98% of respondents could identify at least one school staff member who was supportive.
Supporters gather for a Safe Schools South Florida & Friends rally to push back against the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill (HB 1557/SB 1834) at the Pride Center in Wilton Manors on Feb. 2, 2022.
Mike Stocker/Sun Sentinel/Tribune News Service via Getty Images
Studies have shown that nationally, schools serve as a vital support system for LGBTQ youth.
The Trevor Project’s 2021 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health found that of the more than 82,000 youth who responded, only one-third considered their home LGBTQ-affirming, while 50% considered their school to be so.
The organization released a statement on Tuesday condemning Florida’s proposed bill, saying it would result in “erasing LGBTQ identity, history, and culture — as well as LGBTQ students themselves.” The organization also said it would effectively allow schools to “out” students to their parents without their consent.
“Banning speech about sexual orientation and gender identity in Florida classrooms would not only ben an infringement on civil rights, it would erase entire chapters of history, classic literature, and critical health information from textbooks, to say nothing of erasing students themselves,” Sam Ames, the Trevor Project’s director of advocacy and government affairs, said in a statement.
The bill has drawn significant backlash, including from the White House.
“I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community — especially the kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill — to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are. I have your back, and my Administration will continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve,” said a tweet from President Biden.
I want every member of the LGBTQI+ community — especially the kids who will be impacted by this hateful bill — to know that you are loved and accepted just as you are. I have your back, and my Administration will continue to fight for the protections and safety you deserve. https://t.co/OcAIMeVpHL
— President Biden (@POTUS) February 8, 2022
“Every parent hopes that our leaders will ensure their children’s safety, protection, and freedom,” a White House spokesperson said in a statement reported by The Associated Press. “Today, conservative politicians in Florida rejected those basic values by advancing legislation that is designed to target and attack the kids who need support the most — LGBTQI+ students, who are already vulnerable to bullying and violence just for being themselves.”
Students and LGBTQ advocates have been protesting the measure for days across the state.
“It’s a radical roll back of the calendar,” Scott Galvin, executive director of Safe Schools South Florida, told CBS Miami last week. “It will stop teachers and schools from talking to kids about LGBTQ issues and it will stop them from talking about gay issues among themselves.”
Li Cohen
Li Cohen is a social media producer and trending reporter for CBS News, focusing on social justice issues.
