WASHINGTON (AP) — Nine months ago, President Joe Biden signed a sweeping bipartisan gun law, the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades.

“Lives will be saved,” he said at the White House.

The law has already prevented some potentially dangerous people from owning guns. Yet since that signing last summer, the tally of mass shootings in the United States has only grown. Five dead at a nightclub in Colorado. Eleven killed at a dance hall in California. And just this past week, three 9-year-olds and three adults were shot and killed at an elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee.

A day after that school shooting, Biden’s tone was markedly less optimistic than it was the signing ceremony.

“What in God’s name are we doing?” he asked in a speech Tuesday, calling for a ban on so-called assault weapons like those that were used to kill at The Covenant School in Nashville. “There’s a moral price to pay for inaction.”

Biden and others had hailed last year's bipartisan gun bill — approved in the weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas — as a new way forward.

Several months in, the law has had some success: Stepped-up FBI background checks have blocked gun sales for 119 buyers under the age of 21, prosecutions have increased for unlicensed gun sellers and new gun trafficking penalties have been charged in at least 30 cases around the country. Millions of new dollars have flowed into mental health services for children and schools.

But the persistence of mass shootings in the United States highlights the limits of congressional action. Because the law was a political compromise, it did not address many Democratic priorities for gun control, including universal background checks or the ban on “assault weapons” for which Biden repeatedly has called.

Now, in the wake of the Nashville shooting, Congress appears to have returned to a familiar impasse. One of the top Republican negotiators on the gun law, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, has said new compromise is unlikely. In the House, the new GOP majority favors fewer restrictions on guns, not more.

Asked Thursday about a way ahead, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said legislation alone cannot solve the gun violence problem. He said Americans need to think deeply about mental illness and other factors that drive people to act.

In contrast, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York said Congress should “act with the fierce urgency of now.”

“Our classrooms have become killing fields," he said. “Is that acceptable in America?”

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the lead negotiator on the 2022 bill, says he thinks it represented a paradigm shift in how Congress considers gun legislation. But, he said, “I don’t think that will happen all at once.”

“This is sickening, but the opportunities for legislative change normally come after really terrible mass shootings,” said Murphy, who has been the lead Senate advocate for gun control since the 2012 mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. “I hate that, I wish that wasn’t how it works.”

Tensions were running high on both sides of the Capitol this past week.

On Wednesday, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., stood outside the House chamber and yelled that Republicans are “cowards” for not doing more on gun control, eventually arguing with Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who advocated for allowing teachers to carry guns.

“More guns lead to more deaths!” Bowman screamed at Massie. “Children are dying!”

In the Senate, Republican Ted Cruz of Texas tried on Thursday to force a vote on legislation that would boost police presence at schools. He all but blamed Democrats, who had blocked the same legislation last year, for the Nashville shooting and called the 2022 law “meaningless.” Murphy angrily objected to Cruz's bill, arguing that Cruz wasn't serious about compromise and that his move was a stunt for the cameras.

Despite the frustrations, lawmakers who negotiated the compromise last year say they see slivers of hope.

Murphy said the implementation of the new law, and some of its early successes, will ultimately persuade Republicans to get on board with more legislation.

“What happened last year was seismic for Republicans,” Murphy said.

In terms of the bill's success, “People don’t get excited about the mass shootings that didn’t happen,” Murphy said, and that can be a challenge as they talk about it and contemplate what more could be done. But the dynamics can change quickly, he said.

While Republicans in the past might have tried to shy away from gun measures even if they supported them, Cornyn and Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have been promoting the new law and have discussed it frequently. Late last year, they joined Murphy, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and FBI Director Christopher Wray on a visit to an FBI facility in West Virginia for a briefing on how the background checks were working.

“I am proud to see this commonsense legislation already making a difference,” Tillis said in a statement afterward.

According to recent data obtained by The Associated Press, those who were flagged in the stepped-up background checks and prevented from buying a gun included an 18-year-old in Nebraska who had made terroristic threats and was prone to violent outbursts, a 20-year-old drug dealer in Arizona and an 18-year-old in Arizona who had been previously charged with unlawful possession of weapons and was found carrying fentanyl. All were attempting to purchase long guns.

Tillis said he is aware of a separate case in his home state where a person under 21 who had been charged with assault and battery and assaulting a police officer was flagged and prevented from buying a gun.

"It's just one of those bills that's going to age well," Tillis said, noting that the number of denials of gun sales is a very small fraction of total sales.

Cornyn said that so far, the bill “seems to be working.” But he said he doesn't expect Congress to go any further any time soon. He said would strongly oppose an “assault weapons” ban, as Biden is proposing.

When Biden and other lawmakers talk about “assault weapons,” they are using an inexact term to describe a group of high-powered guns or semi-automatic long rifles, such as an an AR-15, that can fire 30 rounds fast without reloading.

Most Republicans are steadfastly opposed to such a ban, arguing that it would be too complicated, especially as sales and varieties of the firearms have proliferated. There are many more types of these high-powered guns today than in 1994, when the ban was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Law- abiding citizens own those guns, Cornyn said, and “no law-abiding citizen is a threat to public safety.”

Despite the current standstill, John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group, says last year’s bill was proof that they can break gridlock.

“It was never the finish line,” he said.

___

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro, Kevin Freking and Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday, after spending several weeks receiving in-patient treatment for depression.

“I am extremely grateful to the incredible team at Walter Reed,” Fetterman said in a statement. “The care they provided changed my life. I will have more to say about this soon, but for now I want everyone to know that depression is treatable, and treatment works.”

“This isn’t about politics — right now there are people who are suffering with depression in red counties and blue counties,” he continued. “If you need help, please get help.”

The Pennsylvania senator will spend the next two weeks back home in the Keystone State while the Senate is in recess and will return to Washington, D.C., when the session resumes on April 17, his office said.

“I am so happy to be home. I’m excited to be the father and husband I want to be, and the senator Pennsylvania deserves. Pennsylvanians have always had my back, and I will always have theirs,” Fetterman added.

Fetterman’s depression is now in remission, according to Dr. David Williamson, the neuropsychiatrist at Walter Reed who oversaw the senator’s treatment.

He presented with “severe symptoms" of depression when he was first admitted to Walter Reed for treatment in mid-February, including "low energy and motivation, minimal speech, poor sleep, slowed thinking, slowed movement, feelings of guilt and worthlessness," Williamson said in a discharge briefing provided by the senator’s office.

Fetterman had also reportedly stopped eating and taking fluids, leading to low blood pressure and "potentially affecting brain circulation," Williamson also noted.

His mood “steadily improved” throughout his six weeks of treatment, and he was also fitted for hearing aids after the doctors identified mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss on both sides.

“With improvement in his depression, improvement in the patient's speech abilities was noticeable,” Williamson said, adding, “His depression, now resolved, may have been a barrier to engagement.”

The Pennsylvania senator suffered a stroke shortly before the Democratic primary last May that has resulted in ongoing auditory processing issues.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) joked on Twitter that former President Trump should “smash some windows, rob a few shops and punch a cop” on his way to the Manhattan district attorney’s office as a tactic to avoid prosecution.  

Graham, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, made the ironic comment to allude to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) reputation as a soft-on-crime prosecutor and his record of winning fewer felony convictions than his predecessor.  

“How can President Trump avoid prosecution in New York?” Graham tweeted to set up his punchline.  

“On the way to the DA’s office on Tuesday, Trump should smash some windows, rob a few shops and punch a cop. He would be released IMMEDIATELY!” he wrote.  

The joke took a shot at Bragg’s record in office since winning election in 2021.  

The New York Post reported in November that Bragg had downgraded 52 percent of felony cases in his jurisdiction to misdemeanors — doing so significantly more often than his predecessor, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.  

The Post also reported that Bragg’s office won conviction in only 51 percent of felony cases, compared to the 68-percent conviction rate Vance compiled in 2019.  

Bragg has come under fire from critics for circulating a memo in January of last year instructing prosecutors to seek prison sentences for only the most serious crimes.  

He backed off that guidance in February of last year by circulating an email to his staff clarifying that prosecutors should use their own judgment and discretion in deciding how to handle cases and what penalties to seek.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of former President Trump, on Thursday called on Fox News viewers to donate to Trump following the indictment issued him saying that political opponents are “trying to bleed him dry.”

Graham said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday that conservatives should be sure to vote for Trump and donate money to him amid his legal battles. 

“But you need to help this man, Donald J. Trump. They’re trying to drain him dry. He spent more money on lawyers than most people spend on campaigns. They’re trying to bleed him dry,” he said. 

Graham said the indictment that the Manhattan grand jury issued against Trump related to the case investigating a hush-money payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels is “going to destroy America.” 

The indictment remains sealed, but the grand jury has been investigating the $130,000 payment that former Trump attorney Michael Cohen paid Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair she had with Trump. 

Cohen has said he made the payment at Trump’s direction, and Trump reimbursed him. Trump has admitted to reimbursing Cohen but said the money was separate from his campaign funds and denied having an affair with Daniels. 

Graham called the case against Trump “legal voodoo” and “political persecution.” 

“Those who are listening tonight, if you believe that Donald Trump is being treated poorly and wrongly, stand up and help the man. Pray for our country. Pray for him,” Graham said. “Go to DonaldJTrump.com and give money so he can defend himself.” 

He said the indictment will open a “Pandora’s box” that will be a danger to the future of the presidency. 

Trump has also slammed the indictment as politically motivated and said the case will “backfire massively” on President Biden. 

Trump’s 2024 campaign began fundraising off the news of the indictment shortly after it was approved.

Black women in Congress — specifically Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) — are taking the lead in trying to revive the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to guarantee equal rights for all Americans regardless of gender.

The ERA, a subject of furious debate a half-century ago, would be the 28th amendment to the Constitution if affirmed by Congress. Already, 38 states have ratified the amendment, and 27 states have their own ERAs in their state constitutions.

Much has changed since the battles over the ERA first began, but the leadership of Black women has been a constant.

“Black women have always been leaders of the fight to enshrine equality in our nation’s constitution, but we haven’t always been in the headlines for leading that work,” Bush noted in remarks outside the Capitol this week.

She and Pressley are co-chairing the newly founded Congressional Caucus for the Equal Rights Amendment and continuing a long pattern of Black women advocating for equal rights — even when they themselves were often left out of the history books.

“The early Black women intellectuals and activists didn't get a lot of attention because there was sexism and patriarchal thinking in Black communities and racism in white communities,” said Sharon Harley, a historian and professor of Black women's labor history and racial and gender politics at University of Maryland.

Some of the most prominent women involved in the fight for gender equality go back to the 1800s, when abolitionists and suffragettes like Maria Stewart and Sojourner Truth spearheaded the fight for racial and gender equality for Black women.

“When you look at these women, what you see are patterns of activist resistance,” Harley said. “Black women have been critical to progressive thinking, progressive activism, and there's a long history of Black women’s engagement in suffrage paralleled by both sexism and racism.”

“When Black women tell their story … it's a universal story of oppression, economic injustice and the like,” Harley continued. “Their story resonates with other groups, men and women, but they're often telling a story that I think maybe some Caucasian women may be reluctant to tell, reluctant to admit, but it resonates. They're talking about sexual violence, and the abuse of the Black female body. This is something that is universal.”

But that doesn’t mean Black women’s experiences were often honored, in part due to a conflict of interest between white feminism and what professor Nadia E. Brown calls Black feminist pedagogy.

“Black feminist epistemology of knowing the world and a pedagogy of teaching the world about the world have always centered on the combination of not being able to fight racism or sexism, or any other forms of oppression like classism or heterosexism; they’ve always had to do them in tandem,” said Brown, chair of the Women’s and Gender Studies Program and affiliate in the African American Studies program at Georgetown University.

Black feminists would often point out that talking about gendered wrongs doesn’t always address racialized wrongs, Brown added, leading to tensions between white suffragists and Black suffragists.

When Black men won the right to vote in 1870, Black women were told there was no room for them in the suffrage movement, and white suffragists began to use a racialized fear-based agenda to garner support.

“A particular tactic that white suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony used to ensure that they'll get southerners on board with women's suffrage was to denigrate universal male suffrage by saying that Black men who are uneducated are going to rape and pillage communities if you give them the right to vote,” Brown explained. “They're pitting women's interests against racialized interests.”

This agenda would continue throughout the 1900s as women’s rights advocates organized and marched. In 1913, the National American Woman Suffrage Association planned a march on Washington in the name of women’s suffrage. Organized by Alice Paul, a young, white, college-educated Quaker, the original plan was to exclude Black suffragists before allowing them to march — segregated — at the very end of the parade.

Despite this history of exclusion, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) told advocates and reporters outside the Capitol this week that Black women never gave up.

In the 1970s, Black women like Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress, former Rep. Barbara Jordan, scholar and activist Pauli Murray, and lawyer Florynce Kennedy shared personal experiences of battling racism and sexism as Black women to express their support for the 28th Amendment.

As a freshman in congress, Chisholm immediately threw her support behind the ERA after former Rep. Martha Griffiths (D-Mich.) introduced the bill. Chisholm’s landmark “For the Equal Rights Amendment” highlighted how the ERA would apply to due process, criminal sentencing, jury duty and labor laws.

“When men and women are prevented from recognizing one another’s essential humanity by sexual prejudices, nourished by legal as well as social institutions, society as a whole remains less than it could otherwise become,” Chisholm said.

The work of these women has been cited across the nation as other Black women have continued to lead the fight for the ERA.

In 2017, Nevada ratified the ERA under the primary sponsorship of State Sen. Pat Spearman. Following Spearman’s lead, Illinois State Rep. Juliana Stratton spoke extensively on the House floor in favor of ERA ratification, which the state finally ratified in May 2018. Stratton went on to become the first African American elected Lieutenant Governor of the state.

And in 2020, then-state Sen. Jennifer McClellan led the Virginia legislature to become the 38th state to ratify the ERA, paving the way for Pressley to unveil a bicameral, joint resolution to affirm the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment earlier this year.

Today, many of the women involved in the ERA Caucus — including vice chairs Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), McClellan and Lee — are women of color.

“I thank God that Black women, even when they're made to stand in the back, lead from the front every step of the way, because without that intersectional, bold, tenacious fight, we wouldn't be where we are now, even as we recognize that we have still yet further to go,” Lee said this week.

Still, Brown, the professor at Georgetown University, cautions against focusing too much on the caucus’s racial makeup or even the gender of some of the leaders of the caucus.

“It might have unintended impacts falling on deaf ears of people who willfully think talking about race or racism as divisive, without thinking about [talking of] race and racism as an opportunity to strengthen our union and to make the United States live up to the potentiality of a true multiracial democracy,” Brown said.

Women’s caucuses are also sometimes fraught, Brown added, because they’re not always bipartisan and it becomes a lot harder to accomplish goals.

But Brown remains cautiously optimistic of the caucus’s efforts. If the ERA is passed, she said, it would open the door to offering protections against things like pregnancy discrimination, hair style discrimination, reproductive health care and pay discrimination, all of which disproportionately affect Black and brown women.

“This is not a thing of the past. This is not the fight of the past. This is a fight for the present,” Pressley said this week. “I look forward to the day when calendars will say ‘And on this day in history, the ERA caucus was established,’ but I really look forward to the day when our calendars will say ‘On this day in history, the ERA was passed.’

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Thursday called for calm heads to prevail after the Manhattan District Attorney's office indicted former President Trump in relation to hush money payments made to an adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign. 

"Mr. Trump is subject to the same laws as every American. He will be able to avail himself of the legal system and a jury, not politics, to determine his fate according to the facts and the law," Schumer said in a statement on Thursday night.  

"There should be no outside political influence, intimidation or interference in the case.," Schumer continued. "I encourage both Mr. Trump’s critics and supporters to let the process proceed peacefully and according to the law.”

The indictment makes Trump the first ex-president to be hit with criminal charges in U.S. history. 

Many Democrats hailed the indictment. Others have spoken in the same vein as Schumer and are calling for the legal process to play out. 

Trump has maintained his innocence and has denied the allegations. 

Schumer is also one of the few members of Senate leadership to weigh in on Trump's indictment. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the No. 2 Republican, have not issued statements in reaction to the news. 

The White House on Thursday downplayed any rift with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) after the senator penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal chastising the Biden administration for how it is implementing a key piece of legislation passed last year.

Manchin on Wednesday wrote that he was concerned the Inflation Reduction Act was not being used to pay down the national debt and improve energy security as intended. The senator argued that “the administration seems more determined than ever to pervert that law and abuse existing authorities to increase spending.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, asked Thursday about the op-ed, said officials have “a respectful, a productive relationship with Sen. Joe Manchin.”

She said the administration is “very proud of the Inflation Reduction Act,” saying it helps promote energy security, invests in manufacturing and reflects the administration’s values.

“We’re going to continue to work with Sen. Manchin on those shared priorities and values, including reducing the deficit and the permitting reform, which are both part of the president’s budget,” Jean-Pierre said. “Again, we are very proud of the work we’ve been able to do with the senator, and I’ll leave it there.”

Manchin, who is among the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, complained at length in Wednesday’s op-ed about how the Biden administration is implementing the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed with only Democratic votes last summer.

The senator claimed the White House is ignoring the law’s intent to expand fossil energy and is instead “redefining ‘domestic energy’ to increase clean-energy spending to potentially deficit-breaking levels. 

“The administration is attempting at every turn to implement the bill it wanted, not the bill Congress actually passed,” Manchin wrote. “Ignoring the debt and deficit implications of these actions as the time nears to raise the debt ceiling isn’t only wrong, it’s policy and political malpractice.”

Manchin and the White House have butted heads repeatedly during Biden’s first two years in office, with the senator raising concerns about government spending and opposing certain administration proposals. Given Democrats holding extremely narrow majorities in the Senate the past two years, Manchin’s vote carries significant weight.

Manchin has not said whether he will run for another Senate term in 2024.

Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) introduced a bill on Thursday that would make English the official language of the United States. 

Vance said in a release that the bill would also require that government functions are conducted in English and would introduce an English language test for immigrants to become naturalized as citizens. 

“This commonsense legislation recognizes an inherent truth: English is the language of this country. That is why the overwhelming majority of the American people support this proposal,” Vance said. “The English language has been a cornerstone of American culture for over 250 years. It is far past time for Congress to codify its place into law, which is exactly what this bill does.” 

The release states that the bill would apply to all “laws, public proceedings, regulations, publications, orders, actions, programs and policies” from the federal government. 

But, it would not apply to teaching other languages, communications necessary for national security, international relations, trade, tourism or commerce and related to public health and safety, the U.S. Census, actions that protect victims of crimes or those accused of crimes and terms or phrases from other languages. 

The bill would also not affect requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law the requires free public education be provided to children with disabilities and who speak other languages. 

The section of the bill concerning the uniform language testing standard states that all citizens should be able to “read and understand generally” the text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and all federal laws “made in pursuance” of the Constitution in English. 

The bill also states that it should not be construed as preventing a federal official from communicating informally through another language, to limit the use of Alaska Native or Native American languages or to discourage any person from learning a new language. 

The release notes that most countries throughout the world have official national languages. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries that does not.

The release also notes that a majority of states and all territories have already made English their official language.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) issued a warning to the Biden administration this week, threatening a lawsuit if an anticipated guidance from the Treasury Department seeks to circumvent restrictions that he added to a law on electric vehicle tax credits. 

Manchin told reporters this week that if the guidance, expected Friday, “goes off the rails” or otherwise goes around what he intended, “I’ll do whatever I can and that means going to court.”

The Democrats’ climate, tax and healthcare bill eliminated a cap on how many electric vehicles could be eligible for consumer tax credits. However, it also included new stipulations on which vehicles are eligible for the credit. 

It specified that a new vehicle will be eligible for half of the $7,500 credit if a portion of its battery components are manufactured or assembled in North America and the other half if a portion of the minerals in its battery are refined or processed in countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement. 

Those restrictions were expected to pose a heavy lift for automakers, especially in the early years. One auto industry source told The Hill last year that they didn’t believe there were any electric vehicles on the market that met the battery minerals requirement. 

Those restrictions were expected to go into effect along with the extended credit at the start of this year, but the Biden administration said in December that it would delay them until it issued a guidance in March.

At the time, Manchin condemned the announcement, saying that it was “clearly inconsistent with the intent of the law,” which called for the guidance to be issued “not later than December 31.”

It’s not clear what exactly the guidance will say, but Reuters reported this week that it is expected to cause fewer vehicles to get some or all of the credit. 

A Treasury Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions from The Hill.  

Congressional Democrats on Thursday plan to re-introduce a landmark resolution to strengthen civil rights protections for transgender and nonbinary Americans amidst a tidal wave of state and federal measures that target them.

The Transgender Bill of Rights, slated to be introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) ahead of Transgender Day of Visibility on Friday, would expand the definition of sex discrimination in existing federal civil rights and education law to include discrimination based on sex characteristics or gender identity.

“Day after day, we see a constant onslaught of anti-trans rhetoric and legislation coming from elected officials. Today we say enough is enough,” Jayapal, one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Equality Caucus’s Transgender Equality Task Force, said Thursday in a statement.

“With this resolution, we salute the resilience and courage of trans people across our country, and outline a clear vision of what we must do in Congress in order to allow trans people to lead full, happy lives as their authentic selves,” she said.

The resolution, which was also introduced in the last Congress by Jayapal, who has a transgender daughter, would additionally ensure that transgender young people in the U.S. are able to play on sports teams consistent with their gender identity and have access to an inclusive curriculum.

Since 2020, 19 states have enacted laws or policies that prevent transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams, and federal legislation to that effect is currently under consideration in the GOP-controlled House.

House Republicans this month passed controversial legislation that would require schools to make their curricula publicly available and give parents greater latitude to challenge learning materials and influence school policies and procedures.

Two amendments to the bill, both of which were introduced by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and approved by the chamber, state that parents have the right to know whether their child is attending a school that allows transgender women and girls to play on female sports teams or use restrooms or locker rooms that are consistent with their gender identity.

In five states, state law requires that parents be notified of LGBTQ-inclusive curricula and allows them to opt their children out, according to the Movement Advancement Project, and seven states have adopted a law that prohibits teachers from engaging in classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity altogether.

Two states — Arkansas and Florida — have adopted both.

This year alone, more than 450 bills targeting LGBTQ identities have been introduced in state legislatures nationwide, putting the health and safety of LGBTQ Americans, especially transgender young people, at risk. 

Transgender Americans are also four times more likely than their cisgender peers to be victims of violent crime, according to the Williams Institute. More than half of transgender and nonbinary youth said they had seriously considered suicide in the past year in a recent report by The Trevor Project, an LGBTQ youth suicide prevention organization.

“Lives are at stake. The health, safety and freedom of trans people are at stake,” Markey said Thursday. “Congress must take a stand in the face of dangerous, transphobic attacks waged by far-right state legislatures and once again reaffirm our nation’s bedrock commitment to equality and justice for all.”

Jayapal and Markey’s resolution, which has 103 co-sponsors, would also codify a landmark 2020 Supreme Court ruling that prohibits employment discrimination based on gender identity.

The resolution also pledges to invest in community services that prevent violence against transgender and nonbinary people, expand existing resources for survivors and ban conversion therapy practices nationwide.

The Transgender Bill of Rights would additionally expand access to gender-affirming health care across the country. Eleven states have passed laws that bar minors from accessing gender-affirming care, impacting an estimated 77,900 transgender youths, according to the Williams Institute.

The measure also seeks to ban surgery on intersex children and codify the right to abortion and contraception.

Sens. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced a bill Thursday to further expand rail safety requirements in the wake of the East Palestine, Ohio, derailment. 

The Railway Accountability Act, Fetterman’s first piece of legislation, aims to build on a slew of rail safety overhauls included in a bipartisan bill introduced earlier this month. 

Fetterman’s bill would bolster train inspection requirements and direct the Federal Railroad Administration to study the cause of wheel derailments and offer regulatory solutions, among other measures.

“Communities like Darlington Township and East Palestine are too often forgotten and overlooked by leaders in Washington and executives at big companies like Norfolk Southern who only care about making their millions,” Fetterman said in a statement. 

Pennsylvania and Ohio communities are still grappling with the aftermath of last month’s Norfolk Southern train derailment, which caused toxic chemicals to leak into the air and water. 

Fetterman said that the newly unveiled bill makes clear that senators are “doing everything we can to prevent a disaster like this from happening again.” Fetterman aims to return to the Senate by mid-April following a lengthy hospital stay.

The East Palestine incident — and numerous train derailments following it — sparked outrage in Washington, but so far lawmakers have yet to agree on a solution. 

The bipartisan Rail Safety Act, introduced by Sens. Brown and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), would increase safety requirements for trains carrying hazardous materials, hike fines for safety violations and require more frequent inspections of rail cars, among other measures.

That bill has strong support from Senate Democrats and some Republicans. But it’s drawn opposition from the railroad industry’s top lobbying group and conservative advocacy groups, which argued that more regulation would be costly and wouldn’t prevent derailments. 

Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw declined to endorse the bipartisan legislation during a hearing last week, but said he’d support some aspects of the bill such as funding for first-responder hazardous materials training.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) clashed Wednesday afternoon over the future of TikTok in a spirited exchange on the Senate floor that shows disagreements over how to regulate the controversial app cross party lines in Congress.  

The two conservative stars butted heads when Hawley attempted to gain unanimous consent to pass his bill to prohibit TikTok from operating in the United States and ban commercial activity with TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance.  

Paul immediately slapped down Hawley’s request.  

“There are two main reasons why we might not want to do this. The one would be the first amendment to the Constitution. Speech is protected whether you like it or not. The second reason would be that the Constitution actually prohibits bills of attainder,” he said before objecting.   

“This fails on two egregious points, pretty obvious points. I think we ought to think about that,” he added.  

The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder which allow the government to punish individuals or groups without a trial.  

Paul suggested that proponents of banning TikTok are peddling fear and argued that domestic Big Tech companies also collect vast amounts of data from American users without much scrutiny or interference from the federal government.  

“I think we should be aware of those who peddle fear. I think we should be aware of those who use fear to coax Americans to relinquish our liberties,” he said. “Every accusation of data-gathering that’s been attributed to TikTok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies.”  

Hawley parried Paul’s attack by declaring: “I have never before heard on this floor a defense of the right to spy.” 

“I didn’t realize that the First Amendment contained a right to espionage. The senator from Kentucky mentions the Bill of Rights. I must have missed the right of the Chinese government to spy on Americans in our Bill of Rights,” he said with a heavy dose of sarcasm. “Because that’s what we’re talking about here.” 

Hawley set the stage for his request to approve a TikTok ban by unanimous consent by ticking through the company’s alleged business practices, saying TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew confirmed some of the allegations when he testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week. 

“We confirmed from the testimony of the TikTok CEO that TikTok has the ability to track American’s data, to track Americans’ location, to track Americans’ personal lives whether they want it to or not,” Hawley said.  

“It’s not just the videos that you watch. It’s the key strokes that you enter and not just while you are on the app. No, it tracks your key strokes all the time,” he said.  

Paul, however, argued that it should be up to individual Americans whether or not to use TikTok and that the federal government shouldn’t decide for them.  

“In a free country, I don’t have the right to tell The New York Times to publish by op-ed or YouTube to publish my speech,” he said.  

He said if people don’t like what TikTok or other social media platforms handle their data, “quit using them.” 

“But don’t disenfranchise 150 million Americans who are using a social media app and just say it’s no big deal,” he said.  

Hawley had more success in December when he received unanimous consent to pass his bill to ban TikTok on government devices. President Biden signed it into law later that month.  

Hawley’s bill to direct the president to use the International Emergency Economic Power Act within 30 days to block and prohibit transactions with TikTok’s parent company ByteDance is one of several proposals addressing public concern over the app.  

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have introduced the Restrict Act, which requires the Commerce Department to identify, deter and prohibit transactions in information communications technology services that pose a risk to national security or public safety.  

The Senate on Wednesday passed a GOP-led resolution that would end the COVID-19 national emergency that's been in place since 2020.

The measure passed the upper chamber 68-23.

A similar resolution sponsored by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) passed the Senate last year, but did not advance in the Democratically-controlled House. This year it passed the House 229-197, with 11 Democrats joining all Republicans.

President Biden last year threatened to veto the measure. This year, he did not threaten a veto but issued a statement of administration principles before the House vote objecting to the resolution.

On Wednesday, however, he said he would sign the measure.

“The President strongly opposes HJ Res 7, and the administration is planning to wind down the COVID national emergency and public health emergency on May 11. If this bill comes to his desk, however, he will sign it, and the administration will continue working with agencies to wind down the national emergency with as much notice as possible to Americans who could potentially be impacted," a White House official said.

The national emergency is different from the public health emergency, though the White House will end both on May 11. Under federal law, Congress has the power to ask for periodic votes to terminate a national emergency.

President Biden used the powers under the national emergency declaration as the underpinning for his student loan forgiveness plan, which is currently tied up in court.

The initial declaration allowed the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to mobilize personnel to support state and local agencies as they worked to combat the virus. The move also allowed FEMA to access billions of dollars.

Ending the national emergency early could also terminate some of the flexibility that COBRA has been able to exercise.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, got into a heated-back-and forth with Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) on Wednesday over Sanders’s net worth as the panel questioned Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. 

“I take offense to the chairman pointing out that all CEOs are corrupt because they're millionaires. … It's bothering to me because, Mr. Chairman, you yourself have been very successful. Rightfully so. Glad you have. You've been in office for 28 years and you and your wife have [amassed] a wealth of over $8 million,” Mullin said of Sanders during the hearing. “If you can be a millionaire, why can't Mr. Schultz and other CEOs be millionaires and be honest too?” 

The Oklahoma senator also took a knock at Sanders for his best-selling book as he defended Schultz from criticism.

“Why is it that Mr. Schultz, who actually creates jobs — a best seller of a book isn't creating any jobs — why is it that he's corrupt and you're not? Why is it that all CEOs are corrupt because they're wealthy? And yet our chairman, who is wealthy — and I'm glad you are — you’re not?” he asked Sanders.

Sanders parried back that Mullin had hit an “all-time record” of misstatements in his critiques. 

“You've made more misstatements in a shorter period of time than I have ever heard. Well, if I'm worth $8 million, that's good news to me,” Sanders said. “I'm not aware of it. That's a lie.” 

When Mullin countered that he’d learned the figure from public records, the committee chairman responded that he was “probably looking at some phony right wing internet stuff” and encouraged Mullin to “read beyond that.” 

Sanders has acknowledged that he hit millionaire status a few years ago, attributing his wealth to book sales. The independent senator has long been critical of wealthy CEOs and billionaires in the U.S.

"Today in America, we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had with the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, with CEOs now making 400 times more than their workers, and with 3 people on top now owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society. That’s the economic reality that exists today," Sanders said in prepared remarks before the hearing.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.) blocked a move by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to pass his bill that would ban the embattled social media platform TikTok in the U.S., saying the legislation violated First Amendment rights.

“The company has bent over backwards to work with our government,” Paul said on the Senate floor.

“I will continue to defend the First Amendment, and those who believe that the First Amendment doesn’t protect this speech are in the wrong,” he said.

Paul objected to Hawley’s motion to have the bill pass the Senate by unanimous consent and also objected to scheduling a roll call vote for the legislation.

Hawley vowed to continue to try and get a TikTok ban passed.

“The truth will carry the day and we will continue the fight,” Hawley said in response to Paul’s objections.

The debate over whether to ban TikTok has waged on for months and picked up new steam when the company’s CEO Shou Zi Chew testified in front of Congress last week.

Officials have flagged concerns over the connection of TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, with the Chinese government.

Lawmakers say the dynamic between ByteDance, which is owned in part by Chinese founders, and the Chinese government, put U.S. user data at risk.

TikTok has maintained that it has never handed over data to the Chinese government and has pledged that it never will. But the testimony from Chew last week did little to settle the angst in Congress.

The debate Wednesday often veered into a lively exchange of views.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) came to the defense of Hawley, pushing back against Paul’s argument that the bill would violate free speech.

“This is not a First Amendment issue, because we’re not trying to ban booty videos,” Rubio said. “This is not about the content of the videos that are online. It is about the dangers to the national security that are presented by the way that this company functions.”

Rubio argued that ByteDance’s connection to China means the data of users is at the hands of the Chinese government.

“I don’t care who owns ByteDance … ByteDance operates out of China,” Rubio said. “There are no such things as private companies in China. They do not exist.”

Paul fired back at both Harley and Rubio, saying he was “unlikely to take First Amendment advice from someone who believes that the First Amendment doesn’t protect the communist party.”

“Everything that’s been said about, oh this is a channel and a funnel to the Chinese government, these are all conjecture,” Paul said.

A bipartisan bill to allow the Commerce Department to regulate and ultimately ban foreign technologies such as TikTok has also been introduced, and picked up the support of the White House, according to the bill’s co-sponsor Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

Paul said giving the government the power to ban speech sets a precedent that is even more dangerous than the potential threat posed by TikTok.

“Which is more dangerous: Videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the U.S. government banning speech?” Paul saud. “For me it’s an easy answer. I will defend the Bill of Rights against all comers, even if need be, from members of my own party.”

Prominent Senate Republicans are warning Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) not to hold a vote on a Senate-passed bill repealing authorization for the use of military force in Iraq without making major changes to it, laying bare the growing Republican divide over national security.  

McCarthy faces a tough decision after 18 Republican senators voted with 45 Democrats and three Democratic-aligned independents Wednesday to repeal the war authorizations Congress passed in 1991 and 2002, sending it to the House.  

Some Republicans see the internal Republican rift over repealing the authorization for use of military force as part of a larger battle within the party over America’s role in maintaining global order and future defense spending as well as support for the war in Ukraine.  

“The battle is really within the Republican Party and I think the majority of Republican voters are for less intervention and less spending overseas,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who voted to repeal the authorization for use of military force in Iraq. 

Paul thinks the majority of Senate Republicans who voted against repealing the military authorization and who support funding for the war in Ukraine are out of step with GOP voters.  

“If you start to ask where’s the caucus for continued funding or unlimited funding — so it seems — for Ukraine, I think probably 60 percent, 70 percent of Republicans at home are not for that,” he said. 

Paul pointed out that former President Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, the two frontrunners for the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, are “skeptical” of policies extending U.S. intervention in other parts of the world. But he said that Senate Republican leaders remain staunch proponents of projecting U.S. military power throughout the world and supporting the war in Ukraine.  

Republicans are also deeply divided over curbing defense spending as part of a deficit-reduction deal with Democrats. 

McCarthy told reporters last week that he didn’t have a problem with repealing the authorizations but since has come under pressure from Senate Republican, including Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).  

The Senate bill will likely pass the House if it comes up for a vote unchanged.  

An overwhelming majority of House Democrats are expected to vote for it and a third to half of House Republicans may support it as well. 

That would hand a political win to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats and divide Republicans in the House, like it did the Senate.  

“The American people, as we know, are tired of endless wars in the Middle East. Every year we keep these AUMFs on the books is another chance for future Administrations to abuse them,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

A majority of Republican senators voted Wednesday against the bill, which McConnell warns would make it easier for Iran to push U.S. troops and personnel out of Iraq and Syria.  

“Our terrorist enemies aren’t sunsetting their war against us,” he said in a statement Tuesday. “Tehran wants to push us out of Iraq and Syria. Why should Congress make that easier?” 

Other Republicans who opposed the measure say it would put U.S. troops at greater risk of attack.  

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said “about seventy-percent of our conference wanted to replace [the war authorizations] with something” to deter Iran aggression in the region instead of flat out repealing them.  

“No matter how well intentioned you are here, it’s going to be seen as we’re leaving” Iraq, Graham said, which he argued would build on the narrative pushed by China and other adversaries that the United States is an unreliable ally.  

“I hope the House will change this dramatically because in its current form it’s a very bad idea,” he said, adding that it would “most definitely” put U.S. troops at risk.  

Graham offered an amendment to the bill to authorize the use of military force against Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. It failed by a vote of 36 to 60.  

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says McCarthy should amend the bill to repeal the 2002 authorization for use of military force until President Biden or a future president certifies that Iran has stopped supporting terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.  

Without that change, Rubio warned “it will be perceived by the Iranians who are not experts on our system of government that this is Congress telling the president to get out of Iraq and Syria.” 

“They would view that as a green light to step up attacks against us,” he said.  

Rubio’s amendment failed 32 to 63.  

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the House should add language to the bill to give Biden clear authority to take military action against Iran’s affiliates in Iraq.  

“He should include my amendment,” he said. “The problem is the Biden administration and President Biden in particular has been so weak in dealing with our enemies and in particular in dealing with Iran.” 

He said Biden wants to enter into a new nuclear agreement with Iran “and they’re willing to subjugate every other foreign policy objective” to that goal.  

“My amendment simply repeats the Article II standard that the commander-in-chief has the legal authority to act to defend servicemen and women and to prevent an attack or imminent attack,” he said.

Cruz’s amendment failed by a vote of 41 to 55.  

Paul, however, told The Hill that McCarthy should pass the repeal of military force authorization without changes.  

“If we can’t end a war that’s been over … I don’t know what we can do,” he said. “Show some resolve. A significant portion of his caucus is for it. I think it will pass with 60, 70 percent of the vote.  

McCarthy told reporters last week that the bill will a have to “go through committee’ but predicted it has “a good chance” of making it to the floor.  

But Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.), who is standing in for McConnell while he recuperates from a concussion at home, said he doesn’t know what McCarthy will do.  

“I don’t know what they’re going to do over there. They could certainly improve it. Some of the amendments that got voted down over here, a number of them, would be good changes in terms of the policy,” he said.  

He told reporters Tuesday that attacks on U.S. military basses in Syria by suspected Iranian drones “were a reminder of the dangers that we face in the world, particularly in that region from Iranian-backed militias and terrorists.” 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he plans to block a move by fellow Republican Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) to pass a bill that would ban TikTok in the U.S., arguing the bill would limit free speech and emulate censorship from the Chinese government.

“If you don’t like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don’t use them,” Paul said in an op-ed for the Courier Journal on Wednesday. “But don’t think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right to ban them.”

Paul’s office said he planned to object to Hawley’s move to pass his “No TikTok on United States Devices Act” bill when the Missouri Senator tries to get the legislation passed by unanimous consent this week.

The push by Hawley to ban TikTok is the latest chapter in a debate about the future of the platform in Congress.

Officials have flagged concerns about the security of user data on the platform because TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is owned in part by a Chinese investor.

Lawmakers have sounded the alarm that the potential relationship between TikTok and the Chinese government could pose security risks.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was grilled by lawmakers last week about the platform’s data security practices, with a growing number of legislators seemingly coming out in favor of a ban of the app. 

But Hawley’s bill to ban TikTok has been countered by a bipartisan bill, led by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and John Thune (R-S.D.), that would give the Commerce Department the ability to regulate and ultimately ban foreign technologies such as TikTok.

Warner said earlier this week that the White House was in favor of he and Thune’s bill.

A group of six GOP senators on Wednesday introduced legislation that would slap the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) label on nine separate drug cartels in Mexico.

The proposal follows weeks of tit-for-tat recriminations between some Republicans and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, mainly casting blame on the cartel violence and fentanyl crisis in Mexico and the United States.

“Despite what the President of Mexico says, drug cartels are in control of large parts of Mexico,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in a press release. 

“They are making billions of dollars sending fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States where it is killing our citizens by the thousands."

Under the bill, dubbed the Ending the Notorious, Aggressive, and Remorseless Criminal Organizations and Syndicates (NARCOS) Act, a set list of cartels would be included in the list of FTOs that's generally populated by State Department designations.

The bill would designate the Sinaloa Cartel, Jalisco New Generation Cartel, Gulf Cartel, Los Zetas Cartel, Northeast Cartel, Juarez Cartel, Tijuana Cartel, Beltran-Leyva Cartel, and La Familia Michoacana, also known as the Knight Templar Cartel, as FTOs.

Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), said a fixed designation list could miss smaller organizations that often change sides as larger cartels compete against each other.

"This shows one of several arguments against adding cartels to the terrorist list: they fragment, disappear, reappear, and change names all the time. You'd have to update the 'FTO list' every few months or else it'll just be a historical snapshot," said Isacson.

But Graham said the designations "will be a game-changer." 

"We will put the cartels in our crosshairs and go after those who provide material support to them, including the Chinese entities who send them chemicals to produce these poisons. The designation of Mexican drug cartels as FTOs is a first step in the major policy changes we need to combat this evil,” said Graham.

FTO designations allow the U.S. government to sanction the foreign organizations, and they make it unlawful for anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States to "knowingly provide 'material support or resources' to a designated FTO," according to the State Department.

The designations also bar members or representatives of the FTOs from entering the United States, and in certain cases renders those individuals deportable from the country, and freezes the organizations' assets within the financial system.

While several Mexican cartels are already subject to a series of financial limitations under the Transnational Criminal Organization label and other sanctions lists managed by the Department of the Treasury, the bill's sponsors say the FTO designation would help U.S. authorities open new fronts on the cartels.

“We need to dismantle and disincentivize Mexico’s cartels in every way possible. Designating these murderers as Foreign Terrorist Organizations would give U.S. officials more tools to use in putting the cartels and the networks that support them behind bars,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

The GOP bill also has a carve out to prevent the FTO designation from affecting regional migration.

An FTO designation of groups in Mexico could potentially open the door for certain Mexican nationals to claim asylum in the United States under current law. 

A proposal by Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) earlier this month stopped just short of slapping the FTO label on cartels to avoid opening a door for Mexicans persecuted by the cartels to claim asylum in the United States.

Under the Senate proposal, the FTO designation "shall not provide a basis for any alien to obtain any withholding, deferral, relief, or protection from removal of any kind."

Graham and Kennedy were joined by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.).

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is set to return to the Senate the week of April 17, a source close to the senator told The Hill.

Fetterman has been absent from the Senate since mid-February after checking himself into Walter Reed Medical Military Hospital with clinical depression.

President Biden will not veto a GOP-led effort to end the COVID-19 national emergency, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Democratic senators on Wednesday.

A Senate Democratic source confirmed that Schumer informed senators of the decision. The move comes ahead of a planned vote in the upper chamber on the measure later in the day.

The bill would terminate the COVID-19 national emergency effective immediately. The Biden administration has said it would let it expire in mid-May.

The move marks the second time in recent weeks where Biden sided with Republicans on legislation, having declined to veto a GOP-led measure to nix updates to Washington, D.C.'s, criminal code in early March.

The announcement also likely opens the door to a bigger tally among Democrats for the upcoming vote. 

Thirty-three Senate Democrats voted alongside every Republican in the D.C. crime bill vote, with almost every one of those decisions being made after Biden indicated his plans.

The move could also come at the expense of House Democrats as 197 of them voted to uphold the emergency last month. This follows a similar path to the lead-up of the crime measure as 173 House Democrats voted to side with the District and support the new bill.