vox--2020-12-19--Social media companies are already losing the vaccine misinformation fight

Social media companies like Facebook and YouTube have ramped up their policies against coronavirus misinformation and banned false claims about Covid-19 vaccines .
But as distribution of the vaccines begin , online accounts are exploiting loopholes in new policies and successfully sharing misleading claims that attempt to discourage vaccination .
Throughout the pandemic , platforms have established and updated rules meant to curb false claims related to Covid-19 .
Between March and October , Facebook took down 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram , and it added fact-checking labels to another 167 million posts .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced social media companies to adapt again , changing their approach to both Covid-19 misinformation and longstanding anti-vaccination content .
There are already plenty of examples of online content that sow doubt in Covid-19 vaccines .
Posts that suggest vaccination is part of a government scheme and memes that imply that the vaccine comes with extreme side effects either aren ’ t being caught by the platforms or don ’ t appear to violate their rules .
The platforms aren ’ t just contending with anti-vaccination communities .
Conspiracy theorists , conservative groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actively hyping concerns about vaccines , according to Yonder , a firm that ’ s advising companies involved in vaccine development .
While recent polls indicate the number of Americans willing to get the vaccine has grown — to about 70 percent , according to the Kaiser Family Foundation — millions of Americans are still reluctant to take the vaccine , and many may not take it immediately .
Facebook has vowed to remove false Covid-19 vaccine claims that could cause imminent physical harm , and YouTube has said it will take down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities like the World Health Organization .
Twitter is taking the two-pronged approach of taking down Covid-19 misinformation it deems the most harmful , plus labeling claims that are merely misleading .
But overall , these approaches thus far seem focused on removing misinformation rather than addressing the broader scope of vaccine hesitancy and skepticism — a hurdle that could be much more complicated to address .
While platforms tend to tout new policies designed to curb misinformation , they don ’ t always find and remove all the content that violates their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Twitter , Recode found plenty of vaccine misinformation that had yet to be removed or labeled as such .
On Facebook , Recode identified several posts that were only taken down after we flagged them .
Some of those removed claim the pandemic was planned , or that the vaccine would include a microchip , a claim that ’ s specifically banned under Facebook ’ s rules .
Another post that was taken down by Facebook was a meme that jokingly implied that the vaccine comes with extreme side effects .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 100,000 times by the time Facebook took it down .
Other posts identified by Recode that appeared to violate the company ’ s rules include one Facebook post claiming that the Covid-19 vaccine will “ alter your DNA ” and “ attack the uterus.
” It linked to a YouTube video that references the “ Plandemic ” conspiracy theory and Bill Gates .
The post had been shared in a Facebook group with more than 12,000 members , and the video was viewed more than 15,000 times on YouTube .
Similarly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members , a post alleged that the Covid-19 vaccines were part of an attempt to “ keep us from ascending into the spiritual beings that we were meant to be.
” While YouTube has promised to remove Covid-19 vaccine misinformation , Recode found a range of content on the platform that seemed to violate those policies , including easily discovered videos suggesting that the Covid-19 vaccine changes a person ’ s DNA or that the vaccine is a ploy to intentionally kill the elderly in nursing homes .
YouTube took down one video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be the “ mark of the Beast ” and connected it to the end times in the Christian New Testament ’ s book Revelation .
Media Matters has found that , despite YouTube ’ s policies , videos suggesting that the Covid-19 vaccine included a microchip have received more than 400,000 views , and some of them had ads running on them .
Meanwhile , Sam Clark , at the YouTube watchdog site Transparency Tube , points out that plenty of channels known for pushing conspiracies are posting about vaccines .
Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 misinformation starting on December 21 , and research shows that the problem is significant and growing .
November saw the greatest increase in the number of retweets of vaccine misinformation on Twitter this year , according to the misinformation-tracking company VineSight .
Individual posts on these platforms don ’ t necessarily gain a lot of engagement , but they can get a significant amount of traction in aggregate and can even spread to other platforms .
According to data from Zignal Labs , between December 8 and 14 , there were nearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Communist Party had ties to the vaccines and nearly 90,000 mentions of Bell ’ s palsy , an often temporary condition that causes parts of one ’ s face to sag .
After four participants in the Moderna vaccine trial got the condition , the FDA warned people to watch for signs of Bell ’ s palsy , but the agency says there ’ s not enough information to link Bell ’ s palsy and the vaccine .
Meanwhile , much of the content sowing doubt about Covid-19 vaccines avoids making factual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an Instagram post , for instance , conservative commentator Candace Owens called people who get the vaccine “ sheep.
” The video was given a label by Facebook , but it was still viewed more than 2 million times .
Also fueling anxiety are those making false claims about mandatory vaccinations , which the US government is not considering .
Research from Zignal Labs found that , between December 8 and 14 , there were more than 40,000 mentions of a mandatory vaccine on the platforms it tracks .
“ Factually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They ’ re fighting a boogeyman , ” notes David Broniatowski , who studies behavioral epidemiology at George Washington University .
“ There is nobody out there who ’ s saying that we ’ re going to pass a law mandating a Covid vaccine.
” These ideas don ’ t exactly amount to misinformation , and they often stop short of making claims about the vaccine itself .
Still , they serve to undermine confidence in vaccination by raising the prospect of government control , politicizing the vaccine , or raising doubts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Somebody says , ‘ Do you know what ’ s in the Covid vaccine ?
’ And they just leave it at that —it ’ s not really misinformation , ” said Broniatowski .
“ But it ’ s certainly increasing distrust in the vaccine.
” This ambiguity makes the job of moderating what ’ s allowed on sites like Facebook and YouTube very difficult .
These platforms don ’ t want to be accused of amplifying anti-vaccination content , but responsibly sorting through content that includes Covid-19 vaccine-oriented debates , humor , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misinformation is a major endeavor , especially because we ’ re still learning more about Covid-19 vaccines .
At the same time , public health experts have also emphasized that people ought to have space to ask questions about vaccines .
Importantly , these platforms are using strategies beyond take-downs , like applying labels and elevating accurate information from health authorities .
But the primary concern is that the policies of Facebook , Twitter , and YouTube could ultimately exacerbate the problem of vaccine hesitancy , not only through policing misinformation but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while the public might pressure platforms to take down objectionable content , what they leave up is just as tricky .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Social media companies like Facebook and YouTube have ramped up their policies against coronavirus misinformation and banned false claims about Covid-19 vaccines. But as distribution of the vaccines begin, online accounts are exploiting loopholes in new policies and successfully sharing misleading claims that attempt to discourage vaccination.
Throughout the pandemic, platforms have established and updated rules meant to curb false claims related to Covid-19. Between March and October, Facebook took down 12 million pieces of content on Facebook and Instagram, and it added fact-checking labels to another 167 million posts. But the rollout of an authorized Covid-19 vaccine has forced social media companies to adapt again, changing their approach to both Covid-19 misinformation and longstanding anti-vaccination content.
There are already plenty of examples of online content that sow doubt in Covid-19 vaccines. Posts that suggest vaccination is part of a government scheme and memes that imply that the vaccine comes with extreme side effects either aren’t being caught by the platforms or don’t appear to violate their rules.
The platforms aren’t just contending with anti-vaccination communities. Conspiracy theorists, conservative groups, fringe outlets, and others are actively hyping concerns about vaccines, according to Yonder, a firm that’s advising companies involved in vaccine development. While recent polls indicate the number of Americans willing to get the vaccine has grown — to about 70 percent, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation — millions of Americans are still reluctant to take the vaccine, and many may not take it immediately.
Facebook has vowed to remove false Covid-19 vaccine claims that could cause imminent physical harm, and YouTube has said it will take down videos about Covid-19 vaccines that contradict health authorities like the World Health Organization. Twitter is taking the two-pronged approach of taking down Covid-19 misinformation it deems the most harmful, plus labeling claims that are merely misleading.
But overall, these approaches thus far seem focused on removing misinformation rather than addressing the broader scope of vaccine hesitancy and skepticism — a hurdle that could be much more complicated to address.
While platforms tend to tout new policies designed to curb misinformation, they don’t always find and remove all the content that violates their rules. In searching Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, Recode found plenty of vaccine misinformation that had yet to be removed or labeled as such.
On Facebook, Recode identified several posts that were only taken down after we flagged them. Some of those removed claim the pandemic was planned, or that the vaccine would include a microchip, a claim that’s specifically banned under Facebook’s rules. Another post that was taken down by Facebook was a meme that jokingly implied that the vaccine comes with extreme side effects. The image had already been shared more than 100,000 times by the time Facebook took it down.
Other posts identified by Recode that appeared to violate the company’s rules include one Facebook post claiming that the Covid-19 vaccine will “alter your DNA” and “attack the uterus.” It linked to a YouTube video that references the “Plandemic” conspiracy theory and Bill Gates. The post had been shared in a Facebook group with more than 12,000 members, and the video was viewed more than 15,000 times on YouTube. Similarly, in a public Facebook group with 50,000 members, a post alleged that the Covid-19 vaccines were part of an attempt to “keep us from ascending into the spiritual beings that we were meant to be.”
While YouTube has promised to remove Covid-19 vaccine misinformation, Recode found a range of content on the platform that seemed to violate those policies, including easily discovered videos suggesting that the Covid-19 vaccine changes a person’s DNA or that the vaccine is a ploy to intentionally kill the elderly in nursing homes. YouTube took down one video flagged by Recode that suggested the vaccine could be the “mark of the Beast” and connected it to the end times in the Christian New Testament’s book Revelation.
Media Matters has found that, despite YouTube’s policies, videos suggesting that the Covid-19 vaccine included a microchip have received more than 400,000 views, and some of them had ads running on them. Meanwhile, Sam Clark, at the YouTube watchdog site Transparency Tube, points out that plenty of channels known for pushing conspiracies are posting about vaccines.
Twitter will begin enforcing its new policies against Covid-19 misinformation starting on December 21, and research shows that the problem is significant and growing. November saw the greatest increase in the number of retweets of vaccine misinformation on Twitter this year, according to the misinformation-tracking company VineSight.
Individual posts on these platforms don’t necessarily gain a lot of engagement, but they can get a significant amount of traction in aggregate and can even spread to other platforms. According to data from Zignal Labs, between December 8 and 14, there were nearly 30,000 mentions of the claim that the Chinese Communist Party had ties to the vaccines and nearly 90,000 mentions of Bell’s palsy, an often temporary condition that causes parts of one’s face to sag. After four participants in the Moderna vaccine trial got the condition, the FDA warned people to watch for signs of Bell’s palsy, but the agency says there’s not enough information to link Bell’s palsy and the vaccine.
Meanwhile, much of the content sowing doubt about Covid-19 vaccines avoids making factual claims and doesn’t get removed. In an Instagram post, for instance, conservative commentator Candace Owens called people who get the vaccine “sheep.” The video was given a label by Facebook, but it was still viewed more than 2 million times.
Also fueling anxiety are those making false claims about mandatory vaccinations, which the US government is not considering. Research from Zignal Labs found that, between December 8 and 14, there were more than 40,000 mentions of a mandatory vaccine on the platforms it tracks.
“Factually, they’re fighting a ghost. They’re fighting a boogeyman,” notes David Broniatowski, who studies behavioral epidemiology at George Washington University. “There is nobody out there who’s saying that we’re going to pass a law mandating a Covid vaccine.”
These ideas don’t exactly amount to misinformation, and they often stop short of making claims about the vaccine itself. Still, they serve to undermine confidence in vaccination by raising the prospect of government control, politicizing the vaccine, or raising doubts about the science behind it.
“Somebody says, ‘Do you know what’s in the Covid vaccine?’ And they just leave it at that —it’s not really misinformation,” said Broniatowski. “But it’s certainly increasing distrust in the vaccine.”
This ambiguity makes the job of moderating what’s allowed on sites like Facebook and YouTube very difficult. These platforms don’t want to be accused of amplifying anti-vaccination content, but responsibly sorting through content that includes Covid-19 vaccine-oriented debates, humor, opinions, and facts as well as misinformation is a major endeavor, especially because we’re still learning more about Covid-19 vaccines. At the same time, public health experts have also emphasized that people ought to have space to ask questions about vaccines.
Importantly, these platforms are using strategies beyond take-downs, like applying labels and elevating accurate information from health authorities. But the primary concern is that the policies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube could ultimately exacerbate the problem of vaccine hesitancy, not only through policing misinformation but also dealing with those gray areas. So while the public might pressure platforms to take down objectionable content, what they leave up is just as tricky.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-12-19--The Supreme Court’s confusing new “religious liberty” order, explained

The Supreme Court handed down a deeply strange order Thursday evening , denying relief to a religious private school in Kentucky that wants to reopen despite a Covid-19 related order closing all primary and secondary schools in the state .
As a matter of law , the outcome in Danville Christian Academy v. Beshear is correct — or , at least , it would have been correct before the Court handed down a decision on the eve of Thanksgiving that significantly expanded the rights of religious objectors to state laws .
But oddly , the Court ’ s Danville Christian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , and it doesn ’ t engage at all with the question of whether Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo , the transformative decision that the Court just made , permits Kentucky to close religious schools .
Most confusing of all , the Court places a great deal of weight on the fact that Kentucky Gov .
Andy Beshear ’ s order closing schools within his state is about to expire .
“ Under all of the circumstances , especially the timing and the impending expiration of ” Beshear ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the Governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.
” The Supreme Court doesn ’ t typically refuse to decide constitutional cases because an alleged constitutional violation has an expiration date .
If Kentucky enacted a law forbidding newspapers from publishing any criticism of Beshear prior to Christmas , for example , it ’ s hard to imagine that the justices would let such a law stand simply because it would only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s going on here ?
The justices ’ previous decisions concerning religious objections to pandemic-related public health orders suggest that the Court is torn between two goals .
Some members of the Court — especially Chief Justice John Roberts — have emphasized the need for courts to defer to state public health officials during crises like the coronavirus pandemic .
“ The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement , ” Roberts wrote in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 ) .
He added that “ our Constitution principally entrusts ‘ [ t ] he safety and the health of the people ’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘ to guard and protect.
’ ” At the same time , a majority of the Court seems eager to significantly expand the rights of religious conservatives who seek exemptions from state laws , hence the Court ’ s 5-4 decision in Roman Catholic Diocese , which struck down New York state ’ s rules that placed strict limits on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses of worship in areas where there is a Covid-19 outbreak .
Read together , the decisions in Danville Christian and Roman Catholic Diocese suggest that the Court may have struck a balance between these two goals .
In the Roman Catholic case , several members of the Court emphasized the fact that New York ’ s restrictions are particularly strict — in areas with the most severe Covid-19 outbreaks , places of worship could only admit 10 people at a time .
The Danville Christian order , by contrast , emphasizes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not especially onerous .
Indeed , it ’ s only likely to be in effect for a few more days .
The conservative “ religious liberty ” revolution , in other words , is likely to proceed apace .
But the Court may be inclined to choose carefully which cases it uses to make sweeping doctrinal changes .
When a state public health order imposes fairly small burdens on religious exercise , Roberts ’ s call for deference to state officials could very well prevail — but only for as long as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court is tearing down the distinction between laws that are neutral toward religion and laws that discriminate against people of faith Until recently , the Supreme Court ’ s precedents drew a distinction between religious discrimination cases , where religious plaintiffs typically prevailed , and cases where religious people or institutions were treated the same as comparable secular institutions or individuals .
Under the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) , state laws may be enforced against people who object to those laws on religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a “ neutral law of general applicability.
” Thus , so long as a state law does not single people of faith out for inferior treatment , such people of faith must comply with the law .
( A federal statute applies a stricter rule to federal laws that burden religious exercise , so religious objectors are much more likely to prevail in suits against the federal government . )
If a state or local government discriminates against a particular religion or against religious institutions generally , however , such discrimination will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Supreme Court case involving religious discrimination is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) , which answered the question of how courts should approach laws that appear to be neutral on their face , but were enacted with a discriminatory purpose .
In Lukumi , members of the Santeria faith planned to open a church in Hialeah , Florida .
Santeria practitioners in the state largely descend from slaves brought to Cuba in the 19th century , and the faith incorporates aspects of both East African religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Santeria rituals sometimes involve animal sacrifice .
The possibility that such sacrifices could be conducted in their community sparked outrage among some residents of Hialeah , and the city council soon passed a resolution declaring that “ certain religions may propose to engage in practices which are inconsistent with public morals , peace or safety.
” It followed this resolution with a series of ordinances banning animal sacrifice .
Notably , these ordinances had broad exemptions allowing animals to be killed for many reasons , including an exemption permitting kosher slaughter .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Justice Anthony Kennedy described the ordinances in his opinion striking them down , “ it is a necessary conclusion that almost the only conduct subject to Ordinances 87-40 , 87-52 , and 87-71 is the religious exercise of Santeria church members.
” Such a gerrymandered law is not allowed .
State and local governments may enact laws regulating animal slaughter or banning cruelty to animals , but they may not enact a law that is so narrowly targeted that it singles out members of a particular faith for ill treatment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Just as significantly , Lukumi established that , when a law that appears neutral on its face contains an array of exemptions , those exemptions can provide evidence that the real purpose of the law is to discriminate on the basis of faith .
Several justices , however , believe that Lukumi does not go far enough .
They ’ ve claimed that the presence of exemptions in an otherwise neutral law isn ’ t just evidence that the purpose of the law is religious discrimination , but that it is often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for example , in his dissent from the Court ’ s decision not to hear Stormans v. Wiesman ( 2016 ) , Justice Samuel Alito claimed that a Washington state regulation that requires pharmacies to “ deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients ” was constitutionally suspect because it included a number of secular exemptions — the regulation permitted a pharmacy to refuse to fill a prescription if it did not accept the patient ’ s insurance , for example — but no exemption for religious pharmacy owners who object to dispensing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , sought to blur the line between religious discrimination cases and cases involving a “ neutral law of general applicability ” by defining the concept of religious discrimination so broadly that an enormous swath of state laws become suspect .
The Court ’ s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese , the case involving New York ’ s restrictions on attendance at worship services , largely embraced Alito ’ s vision .
Although these restrictions were quite severe , they are actually less harsh than the restrictions imposed on secular businesses that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As a lower court that upheld New York ’ s restrictions explained , “ public gatherings with scheduled starting and ending times such as public lectures , concerts or theatrical performances ” must “ remain closed entirely ” in the parts of New York where strict limits on houses of worship were in place .
But Roman Catholic Diocese held that it does not matter whether businesses that are similar in character to houses of worship are subject to less restrictive rules .
What matters is whether any secular business is subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only permits churches to admit 25 people , but it permits grocery stores to admit many more people , then the state ’ s actions are potentially suspect .
Roman Catholic Diocese , in other words , is a tremendous expansion of the Court ’ s holding in Lukumi .
Lukumi called for a fact-specific inquiry into the real reason why a state or local government enacted a policy that burdens people of faith , and the purpose of that inquiry was to sniff out laws that “ stem from animosity to religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Catholic Diocese , by contrast , presumes that the state engaged in unconstitutional discrimination if a religious institution is treated differently from secular ones — regardless of why the institutions are treated differently .
After Roman Catholic Diocese , the Danville Christian plaintiffs had a strong case Before Roman Catholic Diocese , it was clear that the Danville Christian plaintiffs should have lost their case .
Gov .
Beshear ’ s order closes all primary and secondary schools , regardless of whether those schools are religious or secular .
Whatever the wisdom of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutral law of general applicability .
It does not treat religious schools any differently than similar secular schools .
After Roman Catholic Diocese , however , it ’ s far from clear that the Danville Christian plaintiffs should lose .
As Justice Neil Gorsuch points out in a dissenting opinion , Kentucky allows a wide array of secular institutions to remain open , including preschools , universities , movie theatres , and bowling allies .
There may be good policy reasons why an elementary school should be treated differently than a bowling alley @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these policy distinctions are irrelevant .
Closing a religious private school , while allowing secular businesses to remain open , is suspect under the new rule that the Court announced before Thanksgiving .
In any event , because the Court ’ s decision in Danville Christian places such heavy emphasis on the fact that Beshear ’ s order is about to expire , that decision is unlikely to have very many doctrinal implications .
Once the pandemic is over , the doctrinal shifts laid out in Roman Catholic Diocese will remain , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very often by future courts .
But Danville Christian is a strange decision .
And it suggests that , at least while Covid-19 is still raging , some key members of the Supreme Court may be uncomfortable with the full public health implications of their decision in Roman Catholic Diocese .

The Supreme Court handed down a deeply strange order Thursday evening, denying relief to a religious private school in Kentucky that wants to reopen despite a Covid-19 related order closing all primary and secondary schools in the state.
As a matter of law, the outcome in Danville Christian Academy v. Beshear is correct — or, at least, it would have been correct before the Court handed down a decision on the eve of Thanksgiving that significantly expanded the rights of religious objectors to state laws. But oddly, the Court’s Danville Christian order barely discusses the merits of the case, and it doesn’t engage at all with the question of whether Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, the transformative decision that the Court just made, permits Kentucky to close religious schools.
Most confusing of all, the Court places a great deal of weight on the fact that Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear’s order closing schools within his state is about to expire. “Under all of the circumstances, especially the timing and the impending expiration of” Beshear’s order, the Court ruled, “we deny the application without prejudice to the applicants or other parties seeking a new preliminary injunction if the Governor issues a school-closing order that applies in the new year.”
The Supreme Court doesn’t typically refuse to decide constitutional cases because an alleged constitutional violation has an expiration date. If Kentucky enacted a law forbidding newspapers from publishing any criticism of Beshear prior to Christmas, for example, it’s hard to imagine that the justices would let such a law stand simply because it would only last a week.
So what’s going on here? The justices’ previous decisions concerning religious objections to pandemic-related public health orders suggest that the Court is torn between two goals.
Some members of the Court — especially Chief Justice John Roberts — have emphasized the need for courts to defer to state public health officials during crises like the coronavirus pandemic.
“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement,” Roberts wrote in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2020). He added that “our Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and the health of the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the States ‘to guard and protect.’”
At the same time, a majority of the Court seems eager to significantly expand the rights of religious conservatives who seek exemptions from state laws, hence the Court’s 5-4 decision in Roman Catholic Diocese, which struck down New York state’s rules that placed strict limits on the number of people who could gather in houses of worship in areas where there is a Covid-19 outbreak.
Read together, the decisions in Danville Christian and Roman Catholic Diocese suggest that the Court may have struck a balance between these two goals.
In the Roman Catholic case, several members of the Court emphasized the fact that New York’s restrictions are particularly strict — in areas with the most severe Covid-19 outbreaks, places of worship could only admit 10 people at a time. The Danville Christian order, by contrast, emphasizes the fact that the governor’s order is not especially onerous. Indeed, it’s only likely to be in effect for a few more days.
The conservative “religious liberty” revolution, in other words, is likely to proceed apace. But the Court may be inclined to choose carefully which cases it uses to make sweeping doctrinal changes. When a state public health order imposes fairly small burdens on religious exercise, Roberts’s call for deference to state officials could very well prevail — but only for as long as the pandemic is still raging.
The Supreme Court is tearing down the distinction between laws that are neutral toward religion and laws that discriminate against people of faith
Until recently, the Supreme Court’s precedents drew a distinction between religious discrimination cases, where religious plaintiffs typically prevailed, and cases where religious people or institutions were treated the same as comparable secular institutions or individuals.
Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), state laws may be enforced against people who object to those laws on religious grounds so long as the challenged policy is a “neutral law of general applicability.” Thus, so long as a state law does not single people of faith out for inferior treatment, such people of faith must comply with the law. (A federal statute applies a stricter rule to federal laws that burden religious exercise, so religious objectors are much more likely to prevail in suits against the federal government.)
If a state or local government discriminates against a particular religion or against religious institutions generally, however, such discrimination will typically be struck down. The seminal Supreme Court case involving religious discrimination is Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), which answered the question of how courts should approach laws that appear to be neutral on their face, but were enacted with a discriminatory purpose.
In Lukumi, members of the Santeria faith planned to open a church in Hialeah, Florida. Santeria practitioners in the state largely descend from slaves brought to Cuba in the 19th century, and the faith incorporates aspects of both East African religious beliefs and Roman Catholicism. Notably, Santeria rituals sometimes involve animal sacrifice.
The possibility that such sacrifices could be conducted in their community sparked outrage among some residents of Hialeah, and the city council soon passed a resolution declaring that “certain religions may propose to engage in practices which are inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety.” It followed this resolution with a series of ordinances banning animal sacrifice.
Notably, these ordinances had broad exemptions allowing animals to be killed for many reasons, including an exemption permitting kosher slaughter. Indeed, these exemptions were so broad that, as Justice Anthony Kennedy described the ordinances in his opinion striking them down, “it is a necessary conclusion that almost the only conduct subject to Ordinances 87-40, 87-52, and 87-71 is the religious exercise of Santeria church members.”
Such a gerrymandered law is not allowed. State and local governments may enact laws regulating animal slaughter or banning cruelty to animals, but they may not enact a law that is so narrowly targeted that it singles out members of a particular faith for ill treatment that the law does not afford to others.
Just as significantly, Lukumi established that, when a law that appears neutral on its face contains an array of exemptions, those exemptions can provide evidence that the real purpose of the law is to discriminate on the basis of faith. Several justices, however, believe that Lukumi does not go far enough. They’ve claimed that the presence of exemptions in an otherwise neutral law isn’t just evidence that the purpose of the law is religious discrimination, but that it is often definitive proof of discrimination.
Thus, for example, in his dissent from the Court’s decision not to hear Stormans v. Wiesman (2016), Justice Samuel Alito claimed that a Washington state regulation that requires pharmacies to “deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients” was constitutionally suspect because it included a number of secular exemptions — the regulation permitted a pharmacy to refuse to fill a prescription if it did not accept the patient’s insurance, for example — but no exemption for religious pharmacy owners who object to dispensing birth control.
Alito, in other words, sought to blur the line between religious discrimination cases and cases involving a “neutral law of general applicability” by defining the concept of religious discrimination so broadly that an enormous swath of state laws become suspect.
The Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Diocese, the case involving New York’s restrictions on attendance at worship services, largely embraced Alito’s vision. Although these restrictions were quite severe, they are actually less harsh than the restrictions imposed on secular businesses that are similar in character to places of worship. As a lower court that upheld New York’s restrictions explained, “public gatherings with scheduled starting and ending times such as public lectures, concerts or theatrical performances” must “remain closed entirely” in the parts of New York where strict limits on houses of worship were in place.
But Roman Catholic Diocese held that it does not matter whether businesses that are similar in character to houses of worship are subject to less restrictive rules. What matters is whether any secular business is subject to lighter restrictions. If the state only permits churches to admit 25 people, but it permits grocery stores to admit many more people, then the state’s actions are potentially suspect.
Roman Catholic Diocese, in other words, is a tremendous expansion of the Court’s holding in Lukumi. Lukumi called for a fact-specific inquiry into the real reason why a state or local government enacted a policy that burdens people of faith, and the purpose of that inquiry was to sniff out laws that “stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices.” Roman Catholic Diocese, by contrast, presumes that the state engaged in unconstitutional discrimination if a religious institution is treated differently from secular ones — regardless of why the institutions are treated differently.
After Roman Catholic Diocese, the Danville Christian plaintiffs had a strong case
Before Roman Catholic Diocese, it was clear that the Danville Christian plaintiffs should have lost their case. Gov. Beshear’s order closes all primary and secondary schools, regardless of whether those schools are religious or secular. Whatever the wisdom of that policy, it’s a neutral law of general applicability. It does not treat religious schools any differently than similar secular schools.
After Roman Catholic Diocese, however, it’s far from clear that the Danville Christian plaintiffs should lose. As Justice Neil Gorsuch points out in a dissenting opinion, Kentucky allows a wide array of secular institutions to remain open, including preschools, universities, movie theatres, and bowling allies.
There may be good policy reasons why an elementary school should be treated differently than a bowling alley, but Roman Catholic Diocese suggests that these policy distinctions are irrelevant. Closing a religious private school, while allowing secular businesses to remain open, is suspect under the new rule that the Court announced before Thanksgiving.
In any event, because the Court’s decision in Danville Christian places such heavy emphasis on the fact that Beshear’s order is about to expire, that decision is unlikely to have very many doctrinal implications. Once the pandemic is over, the doctrinal shifts laid out in Roman Catholic Diocese will remain, while Danville Christian is unlikely to be cited very often by future courts.
But Danville Christian is a strange decision. And it suggests that, at least while Covid-19 is still raging, some key members of the Supreme Court may be uncomfortable with the full public health implications of their decision in Roman Catholic Diocese.


vox--2020-12-19--Congress expanded SNAP benefits during the last recession — and should do it again

Food insecurity in the US is the worst it ’ s been in years , and Congress has a clear way to address it : Expand SNAP .
SNAP , which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program , enables eligible individuals and families to get monthly support for food , including a maximum of $ 204 for an individual and $ 680 for a family of four in most states .
Previously known as food stamps , it ’ s a form of direct aid accessible to anyone who earns below a certain income threshold and meets other resource @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people receive in SNAP benefits each month is far from enough to address the current rate of food insecurity , but it would help those who need this relief , and it would alleviate some of the strain on food banks across the country .
According to data gathered by Feeding America , 50 million people could be food insecure this year , compared to 35 million who said they struggled with hunger in 2019 , suggesting a sharp increase in those who may need help .
“ The surge that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw earlier in the year , ” says Catherine D ’ Amato , the head of the Greater Boston Food Bank .
“ I ’ ve never seen anything like it and I hope to never see anything like it again.
” Food banks in many states continue to see huge lines and hours-long waits for food , with demand rising in the spring and then going up again this past fall .
It ’ s not currently clear what a SNAP expansion could look like in a new package , or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bipartisan group of lawmakers had proposed including a 15 percent expansion of monthly SNAP benefits in a new stimulus bill — a boost that could quickly get people more money in the near term .
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer signaled Thursday , however , that SNAP aid was among the sticking points that negotiators were still working through , a sign that it may face some opposition .
Experts in the field , meanwhile , emphasize that expanding SNAP is a critical policy change that would help millions grappling with the fallout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy at the same time .
“ The biggest failure is not providing enough purchasing power right now , ” says Ellen Vollinger , a legal director at the Food Research and Action Center .
How a SNAP expansion would help Expanded SNAP benefits would help in a couple of ways : They could quickly get more money to people who need it , who could then spend it at grocery stores and other retailers , further bolstering the economy .
As Moody ’ s Analytics has previously estimated , every dollar that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a $ 1.70 boost to the economy .
A SNAP expansion would also make sure that the poorest households are able to get more help as the economic downturn continues .
Previously , the Families First Coronavirus Response Act had ensured that all households could receive the maximum SNAP benefit per month , a change that didn ’ t help those who were already receiving that amount .
Any expansion of the monthly maximum would make sure that all people in the program saw an increase in aid .
More SNAP , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ checks , could help people weather thousands of business closures and layoffs that are continuing as the result of the pandemic .
According to the latest Labor Department report , 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance .
A more generous SNAP program would also help reduce the overwhelming demand that food banks are seeing across the country , as they try to serve those who don ’ t get enough aid from the program , those who don ’ t qualify , or those who might not know about it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ largest network of food banks , had projected shortfalls of $ 1.4 billion earlier this year as demand and costs have spiked .
D ’ Amato notes that much of her work has focused on educating people about SNAP , and confronting the stigma around it .
“ The demonizing of SNAP over the years has made it harder for people who want to be associated with the program or seen as needing it , ” says Vollinger .
For people who may newly be in need , states are required to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 days of their applications for the program , she notes .
There ’ s longstanding evidence — including from the previous recession — that increasing SNAP benefits is good for individual households and the broader economy .
During the economic recession in 2008 , Congress expanded SNAP benefits by 13.6 percent on a monthly basis and saw reduced food insecurity in 2009 among those who qualified for the program .
At the time , more households saw their benefits cover food for a longer period of time as well as improved health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this helped a lot of people weather the recession and the same thing could be done now , ” Duke University public policy professor Anna Gassman-Pines previously told Vox .

Food insecurity in the US is the worst it’s been in years, and Congress has a clear way to address it: Expand SNAP.
SNAP, which stands for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, enables eligible individuals and families to get monthly support for food, including a maximum of $204 for an individual and $680 for a family of four in most states. Previously known as food stamps, it’s a form of direct aid accessible to anyone who earns below a certain income threshold and meets other resource requirements.
Increasing the amount of money people receive in SNAP benefits each month is far from enough to address the current rate of food insecurity, but it would help those who need this relief, and it would alleviate some of the strain on food banks across the country.
According to data gathered by Feeding America, 50 million people could be food insecure this year, compared to 35 million who said they struggled with hunger in 2019, suggesting a sharp increase in those who may need help.
“The surge that’s occurring now is greater than what we saw earlier in the year,” says Catherine D’Amato, the head of the Greater Boston Food Bank. “I’ve never seen anything like it and I hope to never see anything like it again.” Food banks in many states continue to see huge lines and hours-long waits for food, with demand rising in the spring and then going up again this past fall.
It’s not currently clear what a SNAP expansion could look like in a new package, or if one is included. Previously, a bipartisan group of lawmakers had proposed including a 15 percent expansion of monthly SNAP benefits in a new stimulus bill — a boost that could quickly get people more money in the near term. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer signaled Thursday, however, that SNAP aid was among the sticking points that negotiators were still working through, a sign that it may face some opposition.
Experts in the field, meanwhile, emphasize that expanding SNAP is a critical policy change that would help millions grappling with the fallout of the pandemic and directly stimulate the economy at the same time.
“The biggest failure is not providing enough purchasing power right now,” says Ellen Vollinger, a legal director at the Food Research and Action Center.
How a SNAP expansion would help
Expanded SNAP benefits would help in a couple of ways: They could quickly get more money to people who need it, who could then spend it at grocery stores and other retailers, further bolstering the economy. As Moody’s Analytics has previously estimated, every dollar that’s distributed through SNAP translates to a $1.70 boost to the economy.
A SNAP expansion would also make sure that the poorest households are able to get more help as the economic downturn continues. Previously, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act had ensured that all households could receive the maximum SNAP benefit per month, a change that didn’t help those who were already receiving that amount. Any expansion of the monthly maximum would make sure that all people in the program saw an increase in aid.
More SNAP, in conjunction with additional UI relief and stimulus checks, could help people weather thousands of business closures and layoffs that are continuing as the result of the pandemic. According to the latest Labor Department report, 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance.
A more generous SNAP program would also help reduce the overwhelming demand that food banks are seeing across the country, as they try to serve those who don’t get enough aid from the program, those who don’t qualify, or those who might not know about it. Feeding America, the country’s largest network of food banks, had projected shortfalls of $1.4 billion earlier this year as demand and costs have spiked. D’Amato notes that much of her work has focused on educating people about SNAP, and confronting the stigma around it.
“The demonizing of SNAP over the years has made it harder for people who want to be associated with the program or seen as needing it,” says Vollinger. For people who may newly be in need, states are required to be responsive and get back to people within 30 days of their applications for the program, she notes.
There’s longstanding evidence — including from the previous recession — that increasing SNAP benefits is good for individual households and the broader economy.
During the economic recession in 2008, Congress expanded SNAP benefits by 13.6 percent on a monthly basis and saw reduced food insecurity in 2009 among those who qualified for the program. At the time, more households saw their benefits cover food for a longer period of time as well as improved health outcomes.
“The evidence is that this helped a lot of people weather the recession and the same thing could be done now,” Duke University public policy professor Anna Gassman-Pines previously told Vox.


vox--2020-12-20--Congress has finally reached a deal on coronavirus stimulus

At long last , Congress has reached a deal on a new coronavirus stimulus bill .
After eight months of back and forth , Democratic and Republican leaders announced on Sunday that they ’ ve arrived at an agreement on a roughly $ 900 billion plan .
The House of Representatives will vote on the bill Monday , according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer .
“ We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time : More help is on the way , ” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed Sunday .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekly $ 300 enhancement in unemployment insurance , a new round of $ 600 stimulus checks , and renewed support for small businesses .
Lawmakers in both chambers will have a chance to review the bill — which is being attached to the annual government spending package — before they take a vote .
Congress on Sunday approved a continuing resolution in order to keep the government funded beyond the December 20 deadline they previously faced .
Lawmakers have worked through several sticking points to get here : Contentious provisions ( including state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ liability protections for businesses ) have been stripped from the legislation , and a last-minute disagreement over the Federal Reserve ’ s emergency lending authorities — one that seemed as if it might completely derail negotiations — has also been resolved .
The final $ 900 billion bill lands between the $ 2.2 trillion proposal House Democrats had put forth in their latest version of the HEROES Act and the much narrower $ 550 billion bill that Senate Republicans have favored .
It contains far less aid than many Democrats hoped to see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to include a round of $ 600 stimulus checks , instead of another wave of the $ 1,200 ones that were distributed earlier this year .
For now , however , this deal is the only option for additional coronavirus relief as millions of Americans grapple with unemployment , looming evictions , and soaring coronavirus case counts .
“ This is a good start , but a lot more needs to be done , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday .
What the stimulus deal contains While there ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few different fronts .
Lawmakers have yet to release the final bill text , so here ’ s what we know so far : Stimulus checks : There is a second round of stimulus checks , though they include less money than the first wave did earlier this year .
These direct payments include $ 600 for individuals who make $ 75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income , rather than the $ 1,200 provided in the CARES Act , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 150,000 or less in total would be eligible for $ 1,200 in direct payments .
Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $ 600 per child .
Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income , much like they were earlier this year .
Unemployment insurance ( UI ) : The plan includes an additional $ 300 in weekly federal UI payments , though it ’ s not yet clear how long these payments would last .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs , much like a prior provision did in the CARES Act .
The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December .
These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits .
Small-business support : $ 284 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck Protection Program , a forgivable loan program that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or fewer employees that have seen a 30 percent or higher decrease in revenue in any quarter this year .
For many , however , this aid comes too late — according to a Fortune report , almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic .
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium : $ 25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium .
As Vox ’ s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported , advocates have argued that at least $ 100 billion in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shortfalls .
Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January .
Food aid : $ 13 billion for food aid to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits , aid for children who received food support at school , and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC ( the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women , Infants , and Children ) .
Demand for such aid has spiked dramatically during the pandemic , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need in recent months .
Student loan deferment : Federal student loan payments would be deferred until the start of April 2021 , extending a policy that ’ s currently in place through the end of January 2021 .
This policy could impact about 40 million student loan borrowers .
Paid sick leave : There is an extension of paid leave tax credits for businesses , which continues a policy established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act .
It ’ s not clear , however , whether the new legislation would guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those caring for children dealing with school closures .
The legislation contains a number of other provisions as well , including $ 82 billion to help schools reopen ; $ 15 billion in aid for airlines — which would be required to bring furloughed employees back — according to Reuters ; and language that bans surprise medical bills for emergency care .
It also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) — demanded emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As Vox ’ s Emily Stewart has explained , the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring , and will be barred from restarting them without congressional approval .
It will also return the unused portion of the $ 454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department , something the Fed had agreed to do in November .
The bill doesn ’ t provide direct aid for state and local governments , a Democratic priority , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for .
How long it will take people to receive help Based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act , it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation .
Earlier this year , the first round of direct payments was deposited in people ’ s bank accounts around mid-April : “ Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March , more than 81 million payments were disbursed , totaling more than $ 147 billion , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts , according to the Government Accountability Office , ” CNBC reports .
People who do not have bank accounts , or whose information is not on file with the IRS , will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments .
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state .
States began distributing $ 600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after the CARES Act was approved this past spring , which means the weekly $ 300 addition could begin in early January @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paycheck Protection Program , banks and other financial institutions began taking applications about a week after the funds were approved by Congress in March .
That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January .
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance ; as Stewart has written , by the time much of this money gets to those who need it , the programs they are meant to extend will have been expired for weeks .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crucial time : According to the latest Labor Department report , 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance .
In November , job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month , suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work .
And this winter , coronavirus cases are projected to soar — forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations in order to prevent the spread of the illness .

At long last, Congress has reached a deal on a new coronavirus stimulus bill.
After eight months of back and forth, Democratic and Republican leaders arrived at an agreement on a roughly $900 billion plan. The House of Representatives will vote on the bill Monday, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
“We can finally report what our nation has needed to hear for a long time: More help is on the way,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell confirmed.
The legislation contains much-needed coronavirus relief including a weekly $300 enhancement in unemployment insurance, a new round of $600 stimulus checks, and renewed support for small businesses. The House released its bill text, which you can read here.
It’s a long read; the bill weighs in at 5,593 pages because the Covid-19 bill is being combined with an annual federal appropriations bill. Some lawmakers in both parties, including progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said they’re frustrated at the lack of time were given to review such a massive piece of legislation before voting.
It’s not good enough to hear about what’s in the bill. Members of Congress need to see & read the bills we are expected to vote on.
I know it’s “controversial” & I get in trouble for sharing things like this, but the people of this country deserve to know. They deserve better. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) December 21, 2020
The final bill sidesteps some sticking points: Contentious provisions (including state and local aid, as well as liability protections for businesses) have been stripped out, and a last-minute disagreement over the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending authorities — one that seemed as if it might completely derail negotiations — has also been resolved.
The $900 billion legislation ultimately offers far less aid than a prior $2.2 trillion proposal House Democrats had put forth, and significantly more than the narrow $550 billion bill that Senate Republicans have favored. Democrats signaled that this wasn’t the last of the relief they planned to send out.
For now, however, this deal is the only option for additional coronavirus relief as millions of Americans grapple with unemployment, looming evictions, and soaring coronavirus case counts. “This is a good start, but a lot more needs to be done,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday.
What the stimulus deal contains
While there’s a lot that the stimulus agreement omits, it is expected to offer much-needed aid on a few different fronts. Lawmakers have yet to release the final bill text, so here’s what we know so far:
Stimulus checks: There is a second round of stimulus checks, though they represent less money than the first wave did earlier this year. These direct payments include $600 for individuals who make $75,000 a year or less in adjusted gross income, rather than the $1,200 provided in the CARES Act, the Washington Post reports. Couples who make $150,000 or less in total would be eligible for $1,200 in direct payments. Individuals and couples with children who qualify for the stimulus checks would also receive an additional $600 per child. Payments will be incrementally reduced for people who make more in annual income, much like they were earlier this year.
Unemployment insurance (UI): The plan includes an additional $300 in weekly federal UI payments through March 14, 2021. This supplemental payment is set to bolster the weekly payment that recipients would get from their state unemployment programs, much like a prior provision did in the CARES Act. The bill would also extend the pandemic unemployment insurance programs that are expiring at the end of December. These pandemic-specific programs currently provide roughly 12 million Americans with UI benefits.
Small-business support: $325 billion is dedicated to small-business aid including repurposed funding for the Paycheck Protection Program, a forgivable loan program that business owners can apply for to cover payroll and operational costs. These loans are aimed at businesses that have seen revenue declines this year. For many, however, this aid comes too late — according to a Fortune report, almost 100,000 small businesses have already closed permanently during the pandemic.
Rental assistance and eviction moratorium: $25 billion in rental assistance is included as well as the establishment of a federal eviction moratorium. As Vox’s Jerusalem Demsas previously reported, advocates have argued that at least $100 billion in rental aid is needed to cover current shortfalls. Additional action would be required to ensure that millions of Americans would not be evicted at the end of January.
Food aid: $13 billion for food aid to help fund a monthly 15 percent increase in individual SNAP benefits, aid for children who received food support at school, and money for other programs including Meals on Wheels and WIC (the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children). Demand for such aid has spiked dramatically during the pandemic, with food banks across the country facing overwhelming need in recent months.
Paid sick leave: There is an extension of paid leave tax credits for businesses, which continues a policy established in the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. It’s not clear, however, whether the new legislation would guarantee leave for workers who have coronavirus or those caring for children dealing with school closures.
The legislation contains a number of other provisions as well, including $82 billion to help schools reopen; $15 billion in aid for airlines, which would be required to bring furloughed employees back, according to Reuters; and language that bans surprise medical bills for emergency care.
It also has new guidelines for the Federal Reserve after Republicans — led by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) — demanded emergency lending programs at the Fed be canceled in any final version of the bill.
As Vox’s Emily Stewart has explained, the Fed will be forced to eliminate several emergency lending programs created with CARES Act funding in the spring, and will be barred from restarting them without congressional approval. It will also return the unused portion of the $454 billion Congress allotted it under the CARES Act to the Treasury Department, something the Fed had agreed to do in November.
The bill doesn’t provide direct aid for state and local governments, a Democratic priority, or the liability protections to shield businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits Republicans had advocated for. Additional deferment of federal student loan payments is also not included in the agreement, Politico’s Michael Stratford reports.
How long it will take people to receive help
Based on the timing of aid from the CARES Act, it could be a few weeks before people see direct relief from the legislation.
Earlier this year, the first round of direct payments was deposited in people’s bank accounts around mid-April: “Within two weeks of the CARES Act going into effect in March, more than 81 million payments were disbursed, totaling more than $147 billion, all through electronic transfers to recipients’ bank accounts, according to the Government Accountability Office,” CNBC reports.
People who do not have bank accounts or whose information is not on file with the IRS will likely see a more delayed distribution of the payments.
The timing of the implementation of enhanced unemployment insurance payments will also depend on the state. States began distributing $600 in supplemental UI roughly two weeks after the CARES Act was approved this past spring, which means the weekly $300 addition could begin in early January.
And when it comes to the Paycheck Protection Program, banks and other financial institutions began taking applications about a week after the funds were approved by Congress in March. That could set up applications for a new round of loans to kick off at the end of December or early January.
This lag time could be costly for those waiting on assistance; by the time much of this money gets to those who need it, the programs they are meant to extend will have been expired for weeks.
Nevertheless, such aid comes at a crucial time: According to the latest Labor Department report, 19 million people are currently receiving unemployment insurance. In November, job growth slowed significantly compared to the prior month, suggesting that the unemployed are facing limited opportunities for new work. And this winter, coronavirus cases are projected to soar, forcing thousands of businesses to shutter or slow their operations in order to prevent the spread of the illness.


vox--2020-12-20--Trump is reportedly considering making Sidney Powell a special counsel on election fraud

President Donald Trump asked key advisers about appointing a controversial lawyer formerly associated with his campaign as a special counsel charged with overseeing an investigation of alleged — and nonexistent — voter fraud , according to a report from the New York Times .
That lawyer , Sidney Powell , has gained notoriety in recent weeks for spreading conspiracy theories about voting machines being rigged for President-elect Joe Biden , for filing legal documents riddled with basic errors , and for being suddenly removed from the Trump campaign legal team .
By appointing Powell a special counsel , Trump would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already disproven attacks on the presidential election a misleading patina of legitimacy .
According to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs , Trump held a meeting at the White House on Friday to weigh whether to name Powell as a special counsel to investigate his repeatedly debunked claims of mass voter fraud in last month ’ s presidential election .
The meeting was reportedly full of current and former Trump allies , including the president ’ s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani , Powell , national security adviser Robert O ’ Brien , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former national security adviser Michael Flynn .
Flynn and Trump reportedly discussed imposing martial law in an effort to use the military to force states to rerun their elections .
Flynn has supported petitions for Trump to use powers in the Insurrection Act of 1807 , which gives a president power to deploy troops in order to quell an armed rebellion .
Powell has also retweeted calls for Trump to use these powers and establish “ military tribunals.
” And Flynn brought up the idea of declaring martial law to overturn the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news channel Newsmax recently , saying , “ People out there talk about martial law like it ’ s something that we ’ ve never done .
Martial law has been instituted 64 times.
” Sources told the Times and Politico that Trump was interested in this idea ; the military , however , has dismissed it out of hand , saying Friday it would have “ no role ” in US elections .
Trump has claimed these reports are false , tweeting , “ Martial law = Fake News .
Just more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also reportedly discussion of how to take control of allegedly compromised voting machines for examination .
Voting officials , however , have not found that machines caused widespread errors — and multiple recounts in states like Georgia have caught any minor errors that did occur in counting .
Giuliani has recently advocated a scheme in which the Department of Homeland Security would seize these machines ; however , the department has reportedly told him it can not do that .
According to the Times , many Trump advisers present at the meeting — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief of staff Mark Meadows — reportedly pushed back on Powell ’ s ideas and proposals , and some suggested he rethink naming her a special counsel .
But Trump himself is said to have signaled support for her , inquiring about getting her a security clearance .
Trump has been advocating for the appointment of a special counsel to look into his claims about the election since it became clear that he would lose .
Trump has also wanted a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden , the son of President-elect Joe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causes of his falling out with US Attorney General William Barr , who was aware of a Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden , but worked to keep the inquiry from becoming public knowledge until after the election , to avoid political interference .
Barr also publicly admitted that no evidence of widespread election fraud exists .
He has subsequently announced his plans to depart from office before Christmas .
A special counsel into election fraud would give conspiracy theories an air of legitimacy It is not clear that Trump could actually appoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investigate fraud as a special counsel in his remaining days in office .
As Vox ’ s Jennifer Williams has explained , special counsels are usually appointed by the US attorney general , and that counsel would be supervised by the attorney general themselves .
Trump could ask Barr to appoint Powell , but it is not clear that he would do so , and Barr is due to step down on Wednesday .
In his absence , deputy attorney general Jeffrey Rosen would be responsible for this task .
According to Politico @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he plans to name a special counsel , and DOJ spokespeople have not commented .
USA Today notes that he pledged to avoid political interference in his 2019 confirmation hearing , telling lawmakers , “ If the appropriate answer is to say no to somebody , then I will say no.
” Should his Justice Department refuse to cooperate , Trump could name a special counsel without DOJ support .
But that person would essentially be toothless , with no access to federal law enforcement resources , subpoena power , or the ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The other possibility is that Trump , in his final weeks in office , could fire Rosen and replace him with someone more likely to enact his wishes , although who that person could be is not immediately obvious .
Nevertheless , special counsels have been of interest to Trump , who has been subject to their investigations since his first year in office amid scrutiny of foreign interference into the 2016 election .
According to a CNN report , he has raised the possibility of using their powers to impose his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which include simply slowing down Biden administration priorities on his way out the door .
And having a special counsel on election fraud would be a powerful legacy .
The Biden administration would likely face pressure not to interfere in a special counsel investigation , even one led by a partisan actor like Powell , thus ensuring that debate over the legitimacy of the last election would continue at the federal level even once Trump is no longer in office .

President Donald Trump asked key advisers about appointing a controversial lawyer formerly associated with his campaign as a special counsel charged with overseeing an investigation of alleged — and nonexistent — voter fraud, according to a report from the New York Times.
That lawyer, Sidney Powell, has gained notoriety in recent weeks for spreading conspiracy theories about voting machines being rigged for President-elect Joe Biden, for filing legal documents riddled with basic errors, and for being suddenly removed from the Trump campaign legal team. By appointing Powell a special counsel, Trump would be elevating her false claims, giving already disproven attacks on the presidential election a misleading patina of legitimacy.
According to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Zolan Kanno-Youngs, Trump held a meeting at the White House on Friday to weigh whether to name Powell as a special counsel to investigate his repeatedly debunked claims of mass voter fraud in last month’s presidential election.
The meeting was reportedly full of current and former Trump allies, including the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Powell, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, and O’Brien’s predecessor, former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Flynn and Trump reportedly discussed imposing martial law in an effort to use the military to force states to rerun their elections. Flynn has supported petitions for Trump to use powers in the Insurrection Act of 1807, which gives a president power to deploy troops in order to quell an armed rebellion. Powell has also retweeted calls for Trump to use these powers and establish “military tribunals.”
And Flynn brought up the idea of declaring martial law to overturn the election in an interview with conservative cable news channel Newsmax recently, saying, “People out there talk about martial law like it’s something that we’ve never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times.”
Here's Michael Flynn on Newsmax saying that Trump could order "military capabilities" to swing states and "rerun an election in each of those states."
"People out there talk about martial law like it's something that we've never done. Martial law has been instituted 64 times." pic.twitter.com/KNmiAGGiPF — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 18, 2020
Sources told the Times and Politico that Trump was interested in this idea; the military, however, has dismissed it out of hand, saying Friday it would have “no role” in US elections. Trump has claimed these reports are false, tweeting, “Martial law = Fake News. Just more knowingly bad reporting!”
There was also reportedly discussion of how to take control of allegedly compromised voting machines for examination. Voting officials, however, have not found that machines caused widespread errors — and multiple recounts in states like Georgia have caught any minor errors that did occur in counting. Giuliani has recently advocated a scheme in which the Department of Homeland Security would seize these machines; however, the department has reportedly told him it cannot do that.
According to the Times, many Trump advisers present at the meeting — including White House counsel Pat Cipollone and chief of staff Mark Meadows — reportedly pushed back on Powell’s ideas and proposals, and some suggested he rethink naming her a special counsel. But Trump himself is said to have signaled support for her, inquiring about getting her a security clearance.
Trump has been advocating for the appointment of a special counsel to look into his claims about the election since it became clear that he would lose.
Trump has also wanted a special counsel to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of President-elect Joe Biden. This was one of the causes of his falling out with US Attorney General William Barr, who was aware of a Justice Department investigation into Hunter Biden, but worked to keep the inquiry from becoming public knowledge until after the election, to avoid political interference. Barr also publicly admitted that no evidence of widespread election fraud exists. He has subsequently announced his plans to depart from office before Christmas.
A special counsel into election fraud would give conspiracy theories an air of legitimacy
It is not clear that Trump could actually appoint Powell — or anyone else — to investigate fraud as a special counsel in his remaining days in office.
As Vox’s Jennifer Williams has explained, special counsels are usually appointed by the US attorney general, and that counsel would be supervised by the attorney general themselves. Trump could ask Barr to appoint Powell, but it is not clear that he would do so, and Barr is due to step down on Wednesday.
In his absence, deputy attorney general Jeffrey Rosen would be responsible for this task. According to Politico, Rosen has declined to say whether he plans to name a special counsel, and DOJ spokespeople have not commented. USA Today notes that he pledged to avoid political interference in his 2019 confirmation hearing, telling lawmakers, “If the appropriate answer is to say no to somebody, then I will say no.”
Should his Justice Department refuse to cooperate, Trump could name a special counsel without DOJ support. But that person would essentially be toothless, with no access to federal law enforcement resources, subpoena power, or the ability to set up a grand jury.
The other possibility is that Trump, in his final weeks in office, could fire Rosen and replace him with someone more likely to enact his wishes, although who that person could be is not immediately obvious.
Nevertheless, special counsels have been of interest to Trump, who has been subject to their investigations since his first year in office amid scrutiny of foreign interference into the 2016 election.
According to a CNN report, he has raised the possibility of using their powers to impose his own priorities in his final days of office, which include simply slowing down Biden administration priorities on his way out the door.
And having a special counsel on election fraud would be a powerful legacy. The Biden administration would likely face pressure not to interfere in a special counsel investigation, even one led by a partisan actor like Powell, thus ensuring that debate over the legitimacy of the last election would continue at the federal level even once Trump is no longer in office.


vox--2020-12-20--Final details are still not settled on a $900 billion coronavirus stimulus package as midnight deadl

Final details are still not settled on a $900 billion coronavirus stimulus package as midnight deadline looms

Lawmakers in Washington are attempting to hammer out final details of a new coronavirus stimulus aid package .
They must do so before midnight Sunday , when the federal government is currently set to shut down , unless Congress passes legislation attached to the stimulus bill that would keep it open .
Fortunately , leaders of both parties say they are close to a deal .
“ It appears that , barring a major mishap , the Senate and House will be able to vote on final legislation as early as tonight , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Majority Leader Mitch McConnell echoed this optimism , saying Sunday , “ I hope and expect to have a final agreement nailed down in a matter of hours.
” At stake is $ 900 billion in relief for individuals and businesses , which would also fund Covid-19 vaccination distribution , rent and utility assistance , and the extension of a federal eviction moratorium at a time when as many as 40 million Americans are facing housing instability and struggling to pay rent .
That package also includes one-time individual payments to Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , after attempts by some lawmakers for slightly higher payments were blocked .
The final stimulus will be combined with this year ’ s omnibus government spending bill , worth $ 1.4 trillion , which would fund the US government through next September .
Failure to pass this spending bill , or a temporary funding extension , by midnight on Sunday would leave the government without money to function , forcing it to shut down .
The spending bill has been postponed throughout last week , as stimulus talks continued to stall following @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders , including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) , have promised that a final bill is at last nearly ready for a vote .
Lawmakers had come into the weekend making similar promises — however , on Saturday , negotiation progress was held up as some Republicans attempted to limit emergency lending powers at the Federal Reserve , the US ’ s central bank .
These Republicans , led by Sen. Pat Toomey ( R-PA ) , wanted to permanently end economic support programs enacted at the central bank during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the programs distort the Fed ’ s role in the financial system .
Democrats argued that the GOP ’ s true concern was that the programs would allow President-elect Joe Biden to enact stimulus measures Republicans are opposed to , independent of Congress .
At just about midnight on Sunday , Democrats reportedly agreed to allow those programs to be shelved , and promised the final legislation would include language barring the Fed from re-creating some of them down the line without first consulting Congress .
However , the Fed would retain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and would be able to restart these without congressional approval .
The Fed will also have to return unspent money it got from the Treasury Department as part of the first stimulus package in March — something it had previously agreed to do .
With that debate settled , congressional leaders signaled that a vote on the bill could occur Sunday afternoon , characterizing negotiations on the bill ’ s final details as moving swiftly : “ We are winnowing down the remaining differences , ” McConnell said on Sunday afternoon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not transpire .
The final details are still being worked out , and the vote is now expected to take place either late on Sunday , or on Monday , following the passage of a continuing resolution that would provide temporary government funding — enough to avoid a shutdown .
What the stimulus bill does — and doesn ’ t — include After nearly eight months of stimulus gridlock , lawmakers began debating a set of bills introduced by a bipartisan group of senators on Monday .
The package initially consisted of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funding for 16 weeks of enhanced unemployment insurance , and a $ 160 billion bill , which included money for state and local aid , as well as liability protections for businesses .
The dispute over the Fed that followed was in some ways related to this second proposal , as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart explains .
Democrats have argued for months that aid to state and local governments is badly needed by those that were forced to overspend to procure coronavirus supplies while facing depressed tax revenues , but Republicans have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ maintained that any stimulus would need to include liability protections , shielding businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits .
Democrats were staunchly against this .
It was this debate that led to these proposals being sectioned off into their own legislation , and eventually , it was decided that both were better left to be addressed in the future .
But , as Stewart explains , some Republicans were concerned state and local aid could flow from the Fed through its emergency lending programs .
After Saturday night ’ s deal , that is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their conclusion , a final package has emerged that is expected to be worth $ 900 billion .
President Donald Trump signaled his support for a bill early Sunday morning , tweeting , “ GET IT DONE ” .
Overall , the aid package is expected to include new funding for unemployment , food and rental assistance for Americans , business relief , and vaccine distribution funds .
It will also include another round of stimulus checks — although at a number far lower than the first round of $ 1,200 checks sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional leaders , most aspects of the bill are now finalized .
There will be support for small businesses , schools , and other institutions .
For example , $ 300 billion would be added to the Paycheck Protection Program ( PPP ) , intended to supplement wages lost by employees of small businesses , and $ 82 billion would go toward education , with an additional $ 10 billion for child care .
As millions of Americans experience housing insecurity , struggling to make rent payments and potentially facing eviction , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion in rent and utilities support , and also extend a broad moratorium on most evictions through January 31 , 2021 .
There will be about $ 25 billion in food aid , and more than $ 10 billion guaranteed for vaccine distribution .
A provision to expand federal unemployment insurance will also be included .
Unemployed workers will be eligible for $ 300 per week .
The unemployment support will likely last for 11 payments — but payments would not be made retroactively .
There will also be one-time payments to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those payments will reportedly be $ 600 for all individuals making $ 75,000 or less .
Lawmakers hope to pass a bill by Monday — at the latest There isn ’ t a lot of distance between the two parties at the moment , and there is intense time pressure to finally get something done , not only because of the pressing need of many Americans , but to avoid a costly government shutdown .
For a while , the size of the one-time stimulus checks were a significant sticking point .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — appear settled .
Exactly when a vote will be held is not completely clear .
Pelosi has said she wants to give lawmakers “ enough time to review it all , ” and as of early Sunday evening no lawmakers outside of leadership had been given an opportunity to see the bill .
Given the tight timetable , it is unlikely any lawmaker will have the time needed to fully and carefully read the legislation , but they nevertheless may be given some time for review .
Leaders of both parties are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , before the government shutdown is triggered .
However , the New York Times has reported that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-CA ) , privately told his party members in the House that the vote might be delayed .
If that is the case , lawmakers are expected to pass a continuing resolution extending government funding until Monday , and to pass both the stimulus package and funding bill then .

Lawmakers in Washington are attempting to hammer out final details of a new coronavirus stimulus aid package. They must do so before midnight Sunday, when the federal government is currently set to shut down, unless Congress passes legislation attached to the stimulus bill that would keep it open.
Fortunately, leaders of both parties say they are close to a deal.
“It appears that, barring a major mishap, the Senate and House will be able to vote on final legislation as early as tonight,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Sunday afternoon.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell echoed this optimism, saying Sunday, “I hope and expect to have a final agreement nailed down in a matter of hours.”
At stake is $900 billion in relief for individuals and businesses, which would also fund Covid-19 vaccination distribution, rent and utility assistance, and the extension of a federal eviction moratorium at a time when as many as 40 million Americans are facing housing instability and struggling to pay rent.
That package also includes one-time individual payments to Americans, likely in the amount of $600, after attempts by some lawmakers for slightly higher payments were blocked.
The final stimulus will be combined with this year’s omnibus government spending bill, worth $1.4 trillion, which would fund the US government through next September. Failure to pass this spending bill, or a temporary funding extension, by midnight on Sunday would leave the government without money to function, forcing it to shut down.
The spending bill has been postponed throughout last week, as stimulus talks continued to stall following months of failed negotiations, but congressional leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), have promised that a final bill is at last nearly ready for a vote.
Lawmakers had come into the weekend making similar promises — however, on Saturday, negotiation progress was held up as some Republicans attempted to limit emergency lending powers at the Federal Reserve, the US’s central bank.
These Republicans, led by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), wanted to permanently end economic support programs enacted at the central bank during the outset of the pandemic, citing concerns that the programs distort the Fed’s role in the financial system. Democrats argued that the GOP’s true concern was that the programs would allow President-elect Joe Biden to enact stimulus measures Republicans are opposed to, independent of Congress.
At just about midnight on Sunday, Democrats reportedly agreed to allow those programs to be shelved, and promised the final legislation would include language barring the Fed from re-creating some of them down the line without first consulting Congress.
However, the Fed would retain control over a narrow set of programs, and would be able to restart these without congressional approval. The Fed will also have to return unspent money it got from the Treasury Department as part of the first stimulus package in March — something it had previously agreed to do.
With that debate settled, congressional leaders signaled that a vote on the bill could occur Sunday afternoon, characterizing negotiations on the bill’s final details as moving swiftly: “We are winnowing down the remaining differences,” McConnell said on Sunday afternoon.
However, a hoped-for afternoon vote did not transpire. The final details are still being worked out, and the vote is now expected to take place either late on Sunday, or on Monday, following the passage of a continuing resolution that would provide temporary government funding — enough to avoid a shutdown.
What the stimulus bill does — and doesn’t — include
After nearly eight months of stimulus gridlock, lawmakers began debating a set of bills introduced by a bipartisan group of senators on Monday. The package initially consisted of a $748 billion bill, which contained funding for 16 weeks of enhanced unemployment insurance, and a $160 billion bill, which included money for state and local aid, as well as liability protections for businesses.
The dispute over the Fed that followed was in some ways related to this second proposal, as Vox’s Emily Stewart explains. Democrats have argued for months that aid to state and local governments is badly needed by those that were forced to overspend to procure coronavirus supplies while facing depressed tax revenues, but Republicans have opposed it.
Republicans, meanwhile, maintained that any stimulus would need to include liability protections, shielding businesses from coronavirus-related lawsuits. Democrats were staunchly against this.
It was this debate that led to these proposals being sectioned off into their own legislation, and eventually, it was decided that both were better left to be addressed in the future. But, as Stewart explains, some Republicans were concerned state and local aid could flow from the Fed through its emergency lending programs. After Saturday night’s deal, that is no longer a possibility.
As negotiations reach their conclusion, a final package has emerged that is expected to be worth $900 billion. President Donald Trump signaled his support for a bill early Sunday morning, tweeting, “GET IT DONE”.
Why isn’t Congress giving our people a Stimulus Bill? It wasn’t their fault, it was the fault of China. GET IT DONE, and give them more money in direct payments. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 20, 2020
Overall, the aid package is expected to include new funding for unemployment, food and rental assistance for Americans, business relief, and vaccine distribution funds. It will also include another round of stimulus checks — although at a number far lower than the first round of $1,200 checks sent out in the spring.
According to congressional leaders, most aspects of the bill are now finalized. There will be support for small businesses, schools, and other institutions. For example, $300 billion would be added to the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), intended to supplement wages lost by employees of small businesses, and $82 billion would go toward education, with an additional $10 billion for child care.
As millions of Americans experience housing insecurity, struggling to make rent payments and potentially facing eviction, the package will include up to $25 billion in rent and utilities support, and also extend a broad moratorium on most evictions through January 31, 2021. There will be about $25 billion in food aid, and more than $10 billion guaranteed for vaccine distribution.
A provision to expand federal unemployment insurance will also be included. Unemployed workers will be eligible for $300 per week. The unemployment support will likely last for 11 payments — but payments would not be made retroactively.
There will also be one-time payments to all Americans beneath a certain income level; those payments will reportedly be $600 for all individuals making $75,000 or less.
Lawmakers hope to pass a bill by Monday — at the latest
There isn’t a lot of distance between the two parties at the moment, and there is intense time pressure to finally get something done, not only because of the pressing need of many Americans, but to avoid a costly government shutdown.
For a while, the size of the one-time stimulus checks were a significant sticking point. Now, that issue — and most others — appear settled.
Exactly when a vote will be held is not completely clear. Pelosi has said she wants to give lawmakers “enough time to review it all,” and as of early Sunday evening no lawmakers outside of leadership had been given an opportunity to see the bill. Given the tight timetable, it is unlikely any lawmaker will have the time needed to fully and carefully read the legislation, but they nevertheless may be given some time for review.
Leaders of both parties are shooting for a vote late Sunday evening, before the government shutdown is triggered. However, the New York Times has reported that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), privately told his party members in the House that the vote might be delayed.
If that is the case, lawmakers are expected to pass a continuing resolution extending government funding until Monday, and to pass both the stimulus package and funding bill then.