With details from Tuesday’s bridge collapse in Baltimore still emerging, President Joe Biden said the federal government should do all it can to help rebuild the span and reopen the city’s port.

And there is relatively recent history of how such an approach could work on Capitol Hill, even if the situations are different in important ways.

Flashback: Back on Aug. 1, 2007, the I-35W Mississippi River expanse in Minnesota collapsed, killing 13 people.

Congress wasted no time in responding: An emergency supplemental bill providing $250 million toward rebuilding the bridge emerged the following day and became law just five days after the collapse, following unanimous passage through both chambers.

Today’s differences: Congress is on recess for the next two weeks, making quick action very difficult. The Baltimore bridge is also much longer, and there’s no cost estimate yet for the rebuild.

Congress notably delayed relief funding for several months in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy’s devastation in the Northeast due to GOP opposition.

Biden, though, indicated federal authorities should move swiftly to help the reconstruction of the span by paying “the entire cost of reconstructing” so it could reopen “as soon as humanly possible.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) indicated that federal transportation agencies would not wait for congressional action before providing funds to the state to commence rebuilding.

“They will be releasing those early funds once all the parties are fully engaged,” the senator said at a Tuesday press conference following conversations with Transportation Department leadership.

Lawmakers, too, will have to assess whether existing money in the fiscal 2024 spending legislation might provide sufficient funds to cover the rebuilding costs already. If not, the White House would likely make a request to Congress and outline what pots of money need to be backfilled in light of the Baltimore collapse.

Democrats are upping their focus on Jared Kushner, heavily scrutinizing former President Donald Trump’s son-in-law as Republicans have repeatedly spotlighted Hunter Biden and the business deals of the president’s family members.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) sent a letter Tuesday asking leading Republicans on the committee to hold a hearing in light of new reporting on Kushner seeking overseas business deals as Trump looks to take back the White House.

“This Committee cannot claim to be ‘investigating foreign nationals’ attempts to target and coerce high-ranking U.S. officials’ family members by providing money or other benefits in exchange for certain actions while continuing to ignore these matters,” the two Democrats wrote in the letter to Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.), who chairs a subcommittee of the panel. POLITICO exclusively obtained a copy of the letter ahead of its release.

“We therefore urge you to work with us to finally investigate Mr. Kushner’s receipt of billions of dollars from foreign governments in deals that appear to be quid pro quos for actions he undertook as senior White House adviser in Donald Trump’s Administration,” they added.

Democrats, in their letter, noted Comer has previously indicated that Republicans would also have questions for Trump’s family members, including Kushner. And Comer has said that legislation he is drafting on ethics and financial disclosure rules — something he said he planned to unveil at the conclusion of the GOP’s sweeping impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden — would also apply to Trump and his family if he wins the White House in November.

But it’s unlikely that Republicans will agree to Democrats’ request to probe Kushner’s deals, after batting down other efforts by the party to use the GOP-controlled committee to investigate Kushner. A GOP Oversight Committee spokesperson indicated as much in a statement to POLITICO.

“Unlike the Bidens, Jared Kushner has a legitimate business and has a career as a business executive that predates Donald Trump’s political career. Democrats’ latest letter is part of their playbook to shield President Biden from oversight. The House Oversight Committee will continue to investigate President Biden’s abuse of public office and hold the Bidens accountable for their corruption,” the spokesperson said.

Still, the growing focus on Kushner’s business deals could be a sign of a potential investigative avenue Democrats will take next year if they flip the House in November.

Democrats have tried multiple times to get Republicans to greenlight subpoenas related to Kushner, which GOP lawmakers have pushed aside or ignored. Hunter Biden also raised Kushner during his closed-door deposition with the committee, and his legal team, in declining a public hearing with the committee, said Hunter Biden would appear if Comer called a hearing with Kushner.

Maryland politicians, including those battling it out for the state’s open Senate seat, mourned the Tuesday collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and vowed to support the city as it begins a lengthy recovery process.

“Baltimore is a city known for its resilience, and we must all now rally around Baltimore as the city begins to heal, rebuild and move forward,” said Rep. David Trone (D-Md.), who’s running in the party’s primary to replace retiring Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

His opponent in that primary contest, Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D), said in a post from her official campaign account that she was “heartbroken” by the loss and “standing by to send further assistance.”

Former Gov. Larry Hogan (R-Md.), the presumptive GOP nominee for the Senate seat, said he was “heartbroken” by the collapse and praying for those missing in the water, adding “we are incredibly grateful for the first responders and rescue teams working to save lives.”

The state’s other sitting senator, Democrat Chris Van Hollen, vowed during a Tuesday morning press conference alongside Gov. Wes Moore (D-Md.) that “the federal government is your partner in this effort.”

The bridge collapsed in the early hours of Tuesday morning after a cargo ship collided with it. In the hours since, Van Hollen said he’s spoken twice with Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who “has pledged that [the Biden administration] will do everything they can to very quickly release, emergency response funds for this important project.”

Baltimore area Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D) said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, the Coast Guard informed him that “initial reports indicate that a harbor pilot and assistant were onboard who ‘reported power issues, multiple alarms on the bridge, and loss of propulsion prior to the incident.’”

Both Moore and an FBI official who attended Tuesday morning’s press conference, William J. DelBagno, said that signs so far point to the collapse being an accident.

“We haven’t seen any credible evidence of a terrorist attack,” Moore said.

Speaker Mike Johnson has been briefed on the bridge collapse, according to an aide.

Other federal officials outside of Maryland conceded the likely long-term economic and trade impacts from the loss of the major connection point in a major city, but stressed their focus remained on saving as many lives as possible.

“Of course it will affect trade,” said Rep. Carol Miller (R-W.Va.), following a brief House pro forma session. “But I’m more worried about the families and, of course, all of the inconvenience that will occur because the bridge is gone and it was such a good link.”

Jordain Carney contributed.

In the weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel, Rep. Jamaal Bowman not only publicly cast doubt on reports that Israeli women were raped, but also called those accusations “propaganda.”

“There was propaganda used in the beginning of the siege,” Bowman (D-N.Y.)told aNov. 17 rally of about 50 pro-Palestinian protesters in Westchester, according to a post on TikTok reviewed by POLITICO. “There’s still no evidence of beheaded babies or raped women. But they still keep using that lie [for] propaganda.”

Asked about those remarks on Thursday outside the House floor, Bowman declined to talk about them on the record.

“I’m focused on my votes and other things. I’m not talking,” he said. When asked if he still doubted those claims, he added: “I’m not talking about that now. My team will get back to you.”

In a statement after his brief interview with POLITICO, Bowman contradicted his previous remarks. He and his team did not deny that he made them. The “propaganda” comment was one of several comments he’s had to walk back on in recent months, including raising conspiracy theories about the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“As I said at this rally, what Hamas did on October 7th is a war crime and they must release all the hostages,” he said. “The UN confirmed that Hamas committed rape and sexual violence, a reprehensible fact that I condemn entirely. I also voted yes on Resolution 966, which officially condemns the rape and sexual violence committed by Hamas. So let me be clear, and ensure my words are not twisted: I always stand against sexual violence in all forms and stand for peace for all.”

Multiple reports of Hamas’ sexual violence during Oct. 7 emerged soon after the attack. A number of Bowman’s Democratic colleagues have decried sexual assaults during the attack going back to Oct. 9, when Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) asserted the attack included “the rape and killing of women, along with the murder of children and the elderly.”

On Oct. 23, the Israeli government showed dozens of foreign reporters a 43-minute video of the atrocities, including children getting killed and some Israelis being decapitated.

“[One] clip showed an Israeli woman inspecting a partially burned woman’s corpse to see if it was a family member,” The Guardianreported that day. “The victim’s dress was pulled up to her waist and her underpants had been removed. Maj. Gen. Mickey Edelstein, who briefed reporters after the viewing, said authorities had evidence of rape.”

A few weeks later, on Nov. 10, the British newspaper also reported that evidence of several incidents of sexual assault and rape were reportedly obtained via video footage taken by Hamas, Israeli civilians and emergency responders. Survivors and witnesses said they had seen women getting raped at a concert site in the Israeli desert.

Four days later, around 150 lawmakers attended a screening of footage from the Oct. 7 attacks, hosted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. While Bowman participated in House votes that day, a spokesperson did not respond to a question about whether he attended the briefing.

In the months since Bowman’s November remarks, evidence of the Oct. 7 rapes has grown substantially. The Physicians for Human Rights Israel published a paper about the “sexual and gender-based violence” that day, a U.N. envoy said there was “reasonable grounds” to believe the claims and President Joe Biden said that he condemned Hamas’ use of “rape, sexual violence, terrorism and the torture of Israeli women and girls.” The BBC also reported in December that they had talked to numerous people who had collected the bodies of victims and said they had “seen multiple signs of sexual assault, including broken pelvises, bruises, cuts and tears.”

In a local press interview on the sidelines of that Nov. 17 rally, Bowman did not repeat the claims calling the rapes and beheadings “propaganda.” Instead, he said: “what happened on Oct. 7 was horrible, and I condemn that and we condemn that.”

Bowman, who lost the support of the progressive pro-Israel group J Street in January because of his “singling out” of Israel for responsibility for the war and his embrace of anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein, is facing a serious primary challenger who is targeting the Squad member for his stance on Israel.

Bowman also has come under fire recently for his past comments about the Sept. 11 attacks. In late January, he said he should not have raised conspiracy theories years earlier about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. “It’s obvious to everyone, especially the far-right MAGA Republicans I take on every day in Congress, that I will always stand up and fight against misinformation and harmful conspiracy theories,” he told CNN at the time.

The Senate is at a temporary stalemate on government funding with only hours until a shutdown deadline hits at midnight, as Republicans demand multiple amendment votes related to the border and immigration.

Several GOP senators said there are roughly 10-12 amendments that are still being discussed, leaving the House-passed government funding bill in limbo. All 100 senators must come to an agreement in order to vote on the massive spending package before the Friday-night deadline.

If Senate leadership fails to land an agreement on amendments, it’s likely a Republican would object to moving forward on Friday and kick the vote into the weekend, prompting at least a brief partial shutdown.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said “all 49 Republicans are ready and willing to vote now” but blamed holdups on Democrats denying two specific GOP amendment requests.

“They especially don’t want to vote on the Laken Riley amendment, which would insist on justice for the murder of Laken Riley and similarly situated illegal criminals, and they don’t want to vote on the amendment that would prohibit charter flights for illegal aliens into the country,” Cotton said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the situation is “still up in the air” and pointed to a number of amendment requests, including one to block the Biden administration from lifting sanctions on Iran.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said several of the amendments have “an immigration flavor.” Lee added that Republicans want some of their amendments requests to be slimmed down to a majority threshold, while others would have a 60-vote threshold.

Senators are slated to begin a two-week recess after they pass the funding legislation. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has a procedural motion to tee up a vote on the bill Sunday, if senators can’t reach an agreement sooner.

Even if Democratic leadership grants amendment votes, it’s unlikely any would be adopted. Changing the bill now would virtually guarantee a brief shutdown, since the House has already left town.

Jennifer Scholtes and Burgess Everett contributed to this report.

House Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger plans to give up her gavel early, asking Republicans on Friday to choose a successor soon so she can step down.

In a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday, the Texas Republican asked the GOP Steering Committee and the rest of the conference to elect a new chair “as soon as possible.” Granger, who isn’t running for reelection next year, said she plans to serve out the remainder of her term in the House and serve as “chair emeritus.”

Granger’s announcement comes just hours after the House passed a massive $1.2 trillion funding package to stave off a shutdown at midnight, finally closing out funding needs on a fiscal year that started five months ago. It’s likely the last major spending deal that she will oversee as Congress barrels toward a presidential election. Reps. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) and Tom Cole (R-Okla.) have already signaled they will run for chair.

“Recognizing that an election year often results in final appropriations bills not getting enacted until well into the next fiscal year, it is important that I do everything in my power to ensure a seamless transition” before work on spending bills for the next fiscal year begins in earnest, she wrote.

Aderholt is the most senior Republican on the committee, after Granger. Cole is the current vice chair.

Granger announced in November that she would not run for reelection to the House this year. She is 81 years old and has represented Texas’ 12th Congressional District since 1997, when she became the first Republican woman to represent Texas in the House.

She went on to become the first Republican woman to serve in several other prominent roles, including on the Defense spending subcommittee, going on to lead the influential panel that oversees military funding.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) threw the GOP-led House into fresh chaos Friday by filing a motion to vacate Speaker Mike Johnson, just half a year into his speakership.

Many Republicans and Democrats alike slammed the move as counterproductive — and few are sure it would even succeed at this point. “So unfortunate, no respect for the integrity of the House,” former Speaker Nancy Pelosi told POLITICO. “But a logical consequence of what [Kevin] McCarthy had to do to get elected speaker.”

Others were blunter: “Would I support it? Are you fucking kidding me?” asked Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), one of the most endangered House Republicans.

But what did Greene’s Friday move actually mean? Here are some answers:

What did Marjorie Taylor Greene just do?

Greene filed a motion to vacate — the same procedural move used last year to oust McCarthy that threw the GOP conference into a internecine maelstrom as they searched for a new leader.

What Greene did not do was trigger action on the motion, or start any kind of clock for the House to consider her proposal to boot Johnson from the speakership. It doesn’t guarantee action on the proposal at all.

Greene said Friday she was not looking for a repeat of the weeks of mayhem that followed the removal and will be trying to formulate a plan for electing a new leader before triggering the resolution. The House is set to go on a two-week Easter and Passover recess, which will either give Greene time to rally allies against Johnson or for opponents — including some Democrats — to come together to defeat her proposal.

Greene said Friday she believes GOP voters do not “want to see a Republican speaker that’s held in place by Democrats.”

Her charge against Johnson: He has passed multiple spending bills without the majority of Republicans in support, leaning heavily on Democratic votes.

Why is ‘privilege’ important to this resolution?

It’s wonky, but deeming something privileged is a way to go around House leadership and compel a floor vote. In practice, leaders must schedule votes on privileged items within two legislative days.

The tool has been used frequently — and prominently — this Congress. Members used it boot McCarthy, as well as to force votes to censure Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.) and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.). Members also expelled former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) using a privileged resolution.

McCarthy agreed to set the threshold at just one member to force a vote on a motion to vacate as part of his initial bargain with hard-line conservatives to win the speakership. According to the Congressional Research Service, lawmakers raised 140 questions of the privileges of the House between 1995 and 2015 — of which, 73 percent were deemed valid.

Is the House definitely going to vote on this in two weeks?

There’s no guarantee of that. Greene had the option to speed up consideration of her proposal, but instead chose a slow path that will loom over House Republicans as they head home for recess.

Greene could have called up her resolution on the House floor Friday and forced a decision sooner. Instead, she is sitting on what amounts to a threat against Johnson’s leadership.

“I’m not saying that it won’t happen in two weeks, or it won’t happen in a month, or who knows when,” Greene said Friday.

Remember: Even during recess, there are legislative days. Pro forma sessions count as legislative days, but there’s no expectation for any action before the House returns in April.

If they do, will Johnson definitely get the ax?

In short, no. Many of the eight GOP “rebels” who tossed former Speaker Kevin McCarthy last fall indicated they weren’t on board yet with this latest effort.

Democrats are floating the idea of helping Johnson hold onto the gavel if he promises a floor vote on aid to Ukraine, as many have sought for months. “If Speaker Johnson has a plan for aid to Ukraine, I’m sure a lot of Democrats would love to hear about it,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told POLITICO.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries didn’t commit to saving Johnson, despite allusions to the possibility previously, saying that conversation would need to happen among House Democrats. “That was an observation not a declaration,” he told reporters of previously suggesting Democrats might save Johnson

Asked by a POLITICO reporter Friday if he was worried about the motion to vacate threat, Johnson merely shook his head.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Speaker Mike Johnson is about to drop to a one-vote majority, as retiring Rep. Mike Gallagher has decided he will exit the House as soon as next month, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

The Wisconsin Republican announced earlier this year that he would not seek reelection, which came on the heels of receiving blowback for voting against impeaching Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. His allies, however, say he was long jaded by the antics of the House following the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

Gallagher’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.

The timing couldn’t be worse for Johnson, who is now potentially facing a vote on his ouster in the coming weeks. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) filed the so-called motion to vacate on Friday, over Johnson working with Democrats to pass a massive spending bill, but it’s unclear when she’ll try to force the vote on the floor.

It also further fuels conference concerns over its trajectory headed into the November election. Fewer mainstream Republicans like Gallagher means a larger share of GOP hardliners are more empowered to take on their own party.

Since Gallagher announced his retirement, the chair of the Select Committee on China has nabbed a legacy-making moment: House passage of a bipartisan bill that would force TikTok in the U.S. to sever its ties to the Chinese government.

Gallagher has said he plans to continue working on national security issues as part of the private sector.