House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers got a clear warning Tuesday from the chamber’s top two GOP leaders: If you don’t fix your data privacy bill, it’s on track to die in your committee.

McMorris Rodgers followed by announcing that she would advance the bill anyway.

The Washington State Republican’s decision to buck the advice of Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) threatens to set up an unusual clash between party leaders and a committee chair over a bill that McMorris Rodgers has deemed a high priority before her retirement at the end of this term.

Two Republicans with knowledge of the matter, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said leadership conveyed to McMorris Rodgers during an in-person meeting on Tuesday that they have concerns about her privacy measure — issues that are fixable, but risk tanking the bill if they go unaddressed.

Both Republicans said that McMorris Rodgers was warned members of her own committee are opposed to her bill, and that while some are prepared to vote for it, they’re reluctant to.

Among the House GOP concerns with McMorris Rodgers’ bill: its call for a “private right of action” giving individuals the power to sue tech companies for damages. Other Republicans have private qualms about the breadth of the bill, including its impact on data collection, particularly as it pertains to artificial intelligence.

That’s on top of other questions about the bill’s effect on law enforcement and public safety.

McMorris Rodgers replied to GOP leaders on Tuesday by making clear she would be moving ahead, touting the bill’s importance — particularly her insistence on stronger online privacy protections for children. She also argued that the party has worked on this legislation for too long, the two Republicans familiar with the matter said.

A third Republican familiar with the matter characterized the meeting as a “good discussion where everyone agreed about the importance of privacy legislation,” adding that the only commitment made was to continue to work on the bill. In that spirit, this Republican added, a committee markup is simply the next step.

However, the other two Republicans said McMorris Rodgers’ response was perceived as a rebuff of her own leaders’ warning.

Critics of the bill are predicting that McMorris Rodgers hopes to pressure her committee members to vote unanimously for the bill, even as some GOP lawmakers privately urge leadership to protect them from having to take any vote.

While data privacy protection is broadly popular with members of both parties — who agree the government should establish federal guidelines to protect consumers as companies continue to collect data online — McMorris Rodgers’ struggle to get the bill to the floor is a clear sign that effectively legislating on the issue won’t be easy.

Even before she rolled out a new version of the bill late last week, a top GOP leadership aide had worked to assure other top Republican staffers that the bill would not make it to the floor in its current form. Yet McMorris Rodgers’ revised version of the legislation did little to alleviate the logjam.

Only 21.4 percent of mid-level Senate staffers are people of color — about 20 points lower than the proportion across the general U.S. population — according to a new report on staff diversity in the Senate.

The study, courtesy of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, dissects racial representation in mid-level jobs in Senate offices, career pathways for Black staffers and confronts issues with data availability.

One other critical finding in the report: Black mid-level staffers are less likely than other racial groups to see internal promotions to top positions.

Both parties in Congress have a perennial problem when it comes to building and retaining a staff with comparable levels of diversity to the country’s population. Democrats as a whole still employ more mid-level staff of color than Republicans, though, according to the report. Here’s a more in-depth breakdown of the study’s findings:

MID-LEVEL STAFF

The 21.4 percent of mid-level Senate staffers who are people of color, according to the report, falls well short of that group’s 41.1 percent of the total U.S. population.

Mid-level posts can pave the way for staff to move into more prominent roles and serve as a pipeline for senior positions in Senate offices. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which has been studying staff diversity since 2015, defines mid-level or “pathway” staff as all deputy chiefs of staff, senior advisers, legislative assistants, counsels and press secretaries/deputy communications directors working in senators’ personal offices.

“Employing a pathway staff that lacks diversity could limit the opportunity to employ a diverse top staff. Many congressional top staff job advertisements also specify a preference for candidates with previous Capitol Hill experience,” wrote the study’s authors, LaShonda Brenson and Kimberly Victor. “Diversity in the pipeline would ensure that more staff of color meet the preference for Capitol Hill experience.”

Senators of color — from both parties — employ people of color as mid-level staff at rates more reflective of the U.S. population than the Senate as a whole, according to the report.

When breaking it down by age group, senators under 60 years old employ the highest percentage of mid-level staff of color in their offices, comprising 29.6 percent of staff of color in those mid-level posts across the Senate.

Senators aged 60 to 69 employed the fewest at 14.8 percent of the total mid-level staffers of color. The staffs of the oldest senators, those older than 70, reported employing 19.5 percent of mid-level staffers of color.

BLACK STAFF PROMOTIONS

None of the Black staffers in top jobs as of January 2020 were still in those jobs as of June 2023, according to the new study, and all six Black top staffers included in the October 2023 report did not rise to those jobs via internal promotion.

In this area, the study built on a 2023 study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies on top staffers in the Senate, which showed disparities in recruitment and retention of pathway staff.

Instead, those staffers moved Senate offices to be hired in their top roles. In contrast, during the same period the report shows that white, AAPI and Latino top staff were promoted internally.

“For African Americans in particular, representation as pathway staff does not lead to similar levels of representation as Senate top staff,” the report says.

SENATE GOP LACKING DATA

The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies pursued their own data by contacting and recontacting staffers directly to collect, confirm or correct information for the report.

While Senate Democrats have conducted their own self-reported diversity studies for the last seven years, there is not comparable data for the chamber’s Republicans.

Federal law requires that employers with more that 100 employees both collect and disclose racial and gender demographic information of their employees to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. But the Senate has exempted itself from that law.

Montana Republican Tim Sheehy is getting some key backup in his bid to oust Sen. Jon Tester.

More Jobs, Less Government, a super PAC with ties to Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), is launching a $4 million TV and digital ad buy Wednesday that will run for about a month. A radio component will begin July 10. The campaign has four spots that yoke Tester to both President Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Tester has one of the tallest political tasks this cycle: Win reelection in a state that Donald Trump won handily in 2016 and 2020 and is likely to win again. To pull it off, Tester will need to create some distance from the national Democratic Party and its unpopular presidential nominee. Republicans are seeking to use Tester’s party affiliation to sink his reelection bid.

The super PAC’s internal polling shows why: In an early June poll of 500 likely voters conducted by Fabrizio, Lee & Associates, Sheehy led Tester 46 to 43 percent, with the Libertarian candidate pulling 4 percent. That’s within the margin of error of 4.38 percentage points. In a two-way race, Sheehy and Tester polled evenly at 48 percent.

Tester fared better than a generic Democrat, with voters saying they preferred a Republican to a Democratic senator 52 percent to 40 percent. But Trump also led Biden in Montana, 54 percent to 36 percent.

The new spots attempt to nationalize the race. They warn that Tester supports Schumer as Senate majority leader and endorsed Biden for president. One uses footage of Biden praising Tester and another features video of Tester expressing confidence in Biden’s mental acuity.

“Jon Tester pretends to be a moderate when he’s campaigning for reelection in Montana, but in Washington, D.C., he votes with Joe Biden 95 percent of the time and wants to keep left-wing New York Senator Chuck Schumer in control of the U.S. Senate,” said Andy Surabian, the lead strategist for the super PAC.

More Jobs, Less Government was up with a seven-figure buy earlier this year slamming Tester’s opposition to the border wall.

Sheehy could use the outside help. Tester and allied groups have been greatly outspending Republicans on ads over the past two months. Since April 1, Democrats have spent $21.6 million, while Sheehy and his GOP supporters have spent $12.8 million, according to the media tracking firm AdImpact.

Rep. Bob Good is pressing forward on his demands for a recount in his primary race, as he trails his GOP opponent John McGuire by 370 votes.

The chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus confirmed his recount plans to POLITICO a week after the polls closed in his primary. McGuire prematurely claimed victory that night, before any election officials had declared a winner. The AP has not called the race because of the impeding recount — while the results are unlikely to shift enough for Good to overtake McGuire’s lead, the AP noted it could be possible.

Asked in the Capitol hallways if he plans to seek a recount, Good (R-Va.) replied: “Yes.” He had an equally brief answer when asked if he had the money to pay for it: “Yes.”

While Good is within the threshold needed to request a recount, he is just shy of the 0.5 percentage-point-or-less requirement that would force a government-funded recount. Instead, he has to pay for it using his own campaign money.

Good signaled he would be willing to respect the results of the recount, though he’s cast doubt about the integrity of the race in interviews. Election officials have firmly dismissed those claims.

“We just want an accurate reflection of the intent of the voters who legitimately, and legally, participated. Everybody should want that,” Good told reporters. “We intend to pursue that. And we’ll respect that when that does happen.”

Many national Republicans have been trying to reassure voters that they’re not working to curb reproductive rights, especially when it comes to in vitro fertilization. Rep. Matt Rosendale is complicating that in the House.

The Montana Republican has proposed an amendment to a measure funding the Pentagon that describes IVF as “morally wrong.”

“While I feel for couples that are unable to have children, the practice of IVF is morally wrong, and I refuse to support any legislation that condones its use,” Rosendale said in a statement. “If you are opposed to abortion, you should be opposed to the practice of IVF.”

The House Rules Committee is currently mulling which amendments to consider as part of floor debate on the defense spending bill, so the amendment from the retiring Montana conservative may never get a vote. He’s floated similar amendments on other bills without securing floor action.

However, Rosendale’s effort is a stark break from most elected Republicans. All Senate Republicans issued a rare joint statement voicing support for IVF access — though they later opposed advancing a Democratic measure to enshrine that into law. Former President Donald Trump has also said he “strongly support[s] the availability of IVF for couples who are trying to have a precious baby.”

Generally, Republicans have struggled to iterate a straightforward policy position on the practice, which presents moral, medical and legal quandaries. Many conservatives are torn between their desire to help parents deal with infertility and their belief in fetal personhood, and have struggled to articulate exactly which laws and policies should govern that area of health care.

Alice Miranda Ollstein contributed to this report.

House Republicans are bypassing a major tool they said they could use to target former President Donald Trump’s prosecutors — at least for now.

Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday morning rolled out a large funding package that includes Justice Department spending for the next fiscal year. But the 158-page bill doesn’t include language targeting a special counsel’s ability to investigate a current or former president, or DOJ’s ability to appoint them.

In addition to not explicitly targeting special counsel Jack Smith, the bill also doesn’t delve into the state-level cases against Trump or go after grant funding to those offices, such as Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Speaker Mike Johnson had specifically pointed to the funding bills as one of three ways that Republicans could hit back after Trump’s felony conviction last month and “rein in” Smith specifically. Hardliners had proposed ideas like using the government funding bill to defund special counsels, as well as targeting grant money that could go to state-level prosecutors.

But while Republicans cut the DOJ’s overall funding and some grants that could be used for investigations, a person familiar with the bill text said, the legislation is not far off from what they did last year.

That doesn’t mean the GOP’s push to punish Trump’s prosecutors is over. The bill is all but guaranteed to attract a litany of hot-button amendments, including a revived fight over Trump’s legal battles, once it gets to the House floor. That vote is currently expected the week of July 22.

However, Republicans did manage to include a proposal that hits one of their favorite government punching bags: The new FBI headquarters. The Justice Department funding bill released on Tuesday includes language preventing the DOJ from using the money to carry out a relocation to a long-planned new FBI building.

Republicans greenlit several amendment votes targeting the Justice Department’s operations on the same funding bill last year. Those included reducing Smith’s salary to $1 and doing the same to special counsel David Weiss, who is leading the yearslong Hunter Biden investigation, and Attorney General Merrick Garland. House Republicans also included restrictions on a new FBI headquarters in their initial government funding bills last year.

But last year’s Justice Department funding bill ultimately derailed because of GOP infighting, and the House never approved it. An eventual spending deal worked out with the Democratic-led Senate did not include those so-called poison pill riders.

Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.

The road to the floor runs through the House Rules Committee on Tuesday for three GOP spending bills leadership looks to tackle this week: Defense, State-Foreign Operations and Homeland Security

The security spending trio is on the move as part of Speaker Mike Johnson’s ambitious effort to pass all 12 spending bills on the floor before the start of the August recess.

Sorting out amendments: The Rules panel on Tuesday will hash out which of the more than 800 amendments proposed for the bills may get a floor vote. They range from a proposal slashing Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s annual salary from $221,000 to just $1, to another that would mandate that carmakers keep AM radio available in new vehicles.

Democrats opposed the GOP-led bills in committee, and they are sure to face opposition in the Democratic Senate if they clear the House. But in a divided Congress, these spending bills provide the opportunity for House Republicans to lay out policy and spending priorities, even if they have little chance of becoming law.

The most contentious Defense bill provisions, on topics such as LGBTQ troops, abortion, climate change, and diversity and inclusion, are likely to be dropped before a compromise version comes together later this year. That’s expected for the other bills as well.

The White House warned Monday that President Joe Biden would veto all three House GOP spending bills on deck this week if they reached his desk.

Starter dough: The House GOP bills will set starting points for negotiations on stopgap funding legislation closer to the Sept. 30 deadline. A final bipartisan compromise on fiscal 2025 funding isn’t expected until after the November election.

President Joe Biden would veto House Republicans’ Pentagon spending legislation loaded with conservative policy provisions if it reached his desk, the White House warned on Monday.

GOP leaders are pushing to pass the annual defense appropriations bill this week, and will not be able to count on Democratic support due to provisions targeting policies on abortion, climate change, LGBTQ troops and diversity and inclusion. In a statement outlining its objections, the White House mirrored those concerns along with a slew of changes House Republicans made to the Pentagon budget request.

The administration also ripped House leaders for dropping bipartisan side deals to last year’s debt limit agreement, which add funding to non-defense programs over the law’s spending caps, a move they argue would exact billions in cuts to domestic priorities while preserving defense spending.

“Rather than respecting their agreement and taking the opportunity to engage in a productive, bipartisan appropriations process to build on last year’s bills, House Republicans are again wasting time with partisan bills that would result in deep cuts to law enforcement, education, housing, healthcare, consumer safety, energy programs that lower utility bills and combat climate change, and essential nutrition services,” the White House argued in a statement of administration policy on the bill.

Outlook: The threat isn’t surprising, and Biden will likely never need to wield his veto pen.

Even if Republicans can secure the votes to pass the bill this week, the most contentious provisions stand no chance of clearing the Democratic Senate and will likely be dropped from any spending deal that becomes law.

Personnel issues: The administration slammed a slate of provisions that block certain personnel policies, arguing that doing so would have “devastating consequences for the readiness and wellbeing of America’s military and their families.”

Chief among White House objections is a provision that blocks funding for the Pentagon’s policy to reimburse troops who travel to seek abortions or other reproductive care. The administration also opposes Republican-backed language limiting money for gender-affirming care for transgender troops and gutting diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the Pentagon.

Ukraine: The Biden team also chided GOP appropriators for not including any of its $300 million budget request for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, a longstanding program to train and equip Kyiv’s troops.

Republicans have said the money isn’t needed after Congress approved more than $60 billion in aid to Ukraine in an emergency package this spring. But leaving the money out also could help GOP leaders lock down votes for hardliners who would otherwise oppose the Pentagon bill if it did include the money.

Democrats have knocked Republican leaders for sending mixed messages with the move, though. And the White House argued it plays into Russia’s hands.

“Eliminating all USAI funding would undermine U.S. national security, undercut Ukraine’s ability to fight Russian aggression, and could cause Russia and other would-be aggressors around the world to question America’s commitment to a critical partner on the frontline of aggression,” the White House said.

Gaza pier: The administration also said it opposes language added to the bill that would defund a humanitarian pier installed by the U.S. military to bring aid into Gaza. Though the beleaguered pier has been criticized as an ineffective method for delivering aid, the White House called it “a valuable tool” and argued nixing funding “would remove a vital link in the humanitarian assistance chain.”

Troop pay: The White House also expressed opposition to an effort by House appropriators to hike junior enlisted troops’ basic pay by 15 percent, on top of a 4.5 percent raise for the entire force. Officials pointed to a Pentagon military compensation review that will assess the issue, and argued the major boost would cost $3.3 billion in fiscal 2025 alone. Incurring the major cost, the administration argued, would force cuts in other parts of the defense budget.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) condemned the Biden administration for tapping a top State Department aide — whose nomination for another posting had been stalled by Republicans — for a top job in the defense secretary’s office.

Derek Chollet, the State Department counselor, will replace Kelly Magsamen as the new chief of staff to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the Pentagon chief announced on Monday.

“He is absolutely unqualified for this position,” said McCaul, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement to POLITICO, calling it an “ill-advised decision.”

“With the many national security threats this country is facing, we need real leadership at the Defense Department — and Derek Chollet is not that,” McCaul added. “I strongly urge the secretary to reconsider this move.”

McCaul, whose panel is leading an investigation into the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, had argued against his earlier nomination to lead the Pentagon’s policy office.

McCaul, in a February letter urging the Senate to reject Chollet, argued that the nominee “feigned forgetfulness” when questioned for the probe — a charge the State Department denied.

“His lack of candor in my committee’s transcribed interview together with his flippant public remarks about his work at the State Department make it clear he is neither a serious person nor is he trustworthy,” McCaul said in his statement Monday.

Chollet was President Joe Biden’s pick for the Pentagon’s top policy job but his confirmation was stalled in the Senate for months amid Republican backlash.

Chollet faced a bruising Senate confirmation hearing in September. In the nine months since, the Armed Services Committee hasn’t voted to advance Chollet, indicating he likely doesn’t have enough support to be confirmed by the full Senate. And the Senate is in session only a matter of weeks before the election, making it unlikely Democratic leaders would push to confirm him now.

Pentagon officials who defended Chollet cited his extensive Middle East policy experience, a quality that should be useful to Austin amid Israel’s war in Gaza. Chollet served as the Pentagon’s assistant secretary for international security affairs from 2012 to 2015 in the Obama administration.

Nominees for the Pentagon’s policy chief — a top role in DOD’s civilian leadership — typically receive broad bipartisan support, though that’s not been the case in recent years.

Interparty scrapping tied up the last Senate-confirmed undersecretary for policy, Colin Kahl, and then-President Donald Trump withdrew his late-term pick for the job, Anthony Tata, amid a partisan split.

The Pentagon’s chief of staff serves as an adviser to the defense secretary on issues ranging from the U.S. military force abroad to how the Pentagon can be prepared technologically for the future. The position, unlike the top policy job for which Chollet was nominated, does not require confirmation from Congress.

Chollet’s appointment was first reported by The Washington Post.

The House’s nonpartisan ethics watchdog found “substantial reason to believe” that Texas Republican Reps. Ronny Jackson and Wesley Hunt used campaign money for personal or non-political purposes — on social club dues — according to reports released Monday.

Campaign finance laws prohibit lawmakers from spending campaign funds on dues that provide unlimited access at social or country clubs but allow campaign spending on political events at such clubs.

The outside Office of Congressional Ethics had previously probed $11,928.27 in payments from Jackson’s campaign to the Amarillo Club in his home state between October 2020 and January 2024. It’s not the first time the ethics watchdog investigated his campaign’s monthly payments there.

Following the investigation last Congress, Jackson’s campaign continued making monthly payments to the club but changed the category of spending from “Registration Fees” to other designations like “Membership Fees,” “Food/Beverage,” or “Membership for Exclusive Campaign Purposes,” the office said.

Neither Jackson nor the club cooperated with the investigation, according to the office. A Jackson spokesperson denounced the continued investigation as “baseless” and said it “raises no new information.”

Hunt had been investigated for a similar violation at the Oak Room, a social club in Houston. The office’s report noted that Hunt’s campaign had listed “Membership” at the club in its FEC filings, paying $5,412.50 to the club in dues and fees since April 2022. The OCE also highlighted a $43,626.52 payment to the club in November 2022 for “Facility Rental/Catering” and another $4,132.44 payment shortly after for “Catering.”

Hunt also didn’t cooperate with the probe, according to the report. His attorneys Chris K. Gober, Eric Wang and Anna Mackin denied any wrongdoing in a letter to the House Ethics Committee that was released along with the reports.

“All of the Hunt for Congress payments to the Post Oak Hotel, including for membership in the Post Oak Club, were exclusively for campaign-related purposes and not for any personal purposes,” they wrote. The large payments highlighted by the outside ethics office had covered Hunt’s election night party in 2022, they said.

The office has referred the cases to the House Ethics Committee for the evenly divided panel to review the matter. The Ethics Committee said in statements it would review the referrals and refrain from further comment until those reviews were complete.