Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Claim: Coronavirus relief package includes nearly $2 billion for new FBI headquarters. Fact check: True
The GOP coronavirus bill has $1.75b for a new FBI building in its present location so as to block a potential compe… https://t.co/0cttnls4Sv— Bill Kristol (@Bill Kristol)1595892618.0
A GOP-proposed, roughly $1 trillion coronavirus relief bill includes nearly $2 billion for a new FBI headquarters.
The new headquarters has been in the works for over a decade. Proponents of the funding say that the FBI has been helpful in fighting increased crime due to Covid-19 and cyber breaches against new vaccines. But opponents say the funding is not directly related to Covid-19 and that the Trump administration has something to gain by keeping the headquarters in downtown Washington, near a Trump hotel, rather than it's proposed move to a suburb of Maryland or Virginia.
And many Senate Republicans have uncharacteristically parted with the Trump administration to rebuke the request.
"I would hope that all non-Covid related measures are out no matter what bills they were in at the start," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters on Tuesday.
President Trump had previously blocked efforts to move the FBI to the suburbs, and critics believe he is concerned a rival hotel could be developed at the agency's current site.
The GOP and Democrats are still far apart on a new coronavirus relief package after Senate Republicans unveiled their proposal on Monday. Senate leaders have not given firm deadlines for negotiations.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The GOP coronavirus bill has $1.75b for a new FBI building in its present location so as to block a potential compe… https://t.co/0cttnls4Sv— Bill Kristol (@Bill Kristol)1595892618.0
Congress has already passed more than $2.5 trillion to combat the pandemic.
- Mueller stresses gravity of Russian meddling, but election security ... ›
- Trump may force courts to step in as referee - The Fulcrum ›
- Senate blocks three more election security bills - The Fulcrum ›
- With no federal relief, states are on their own for election - The Fulcrum ›
- Fact checking claims about national popular vote - The Fulcrum ›
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter.
Sen. Roy Blunt (right) speaks with Sen. Lamar Alexander prior to the start of the Rules Committee hearing on election preparations.
Bipartisan accord in the Senate for more election cash, but how much?
A bipartisan consensus has become clear in Congress that states need more federal help, and quickly, or else their elections in November risk becoming dangerously unhealthy, inefficient and unreliable — mainly because they might not be ready to deliver and count the torrent of mail ballots requested by voters anxious about the coronavirus.
All the witnesses made essentially that point Wednesday in a Senate hearing. And they had a clearly receptive ear from Roy Blunt of Missouri, who convened the session as the Republican leadership's point person on election funding.
But Blunt did not reveal how much he was willing to include in the next pandemic economic relief bill, negotiations on which have gotten off to a scattershot start in Congress this week. Republicans have been fighting among themselves about much the economic rescue package should cost and which of President Trump's expensive ideas to include.
"Voters in this country must be able to cast a ballot safely and securely and without putting their health at risk — both this fall in the general election and in the remaining primary elections leading up to the general election," Blunt said, adding that he was "trying to identify the right amount of new money" both needed and politically possible.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
That was a clear signal GOP leaders will include money for elections in the legislation — knowing much of it will be spent to support expanded voting, which the president insists without evidence will assure "the most corrupt election in our nation's history," as he tweeted this week.
"We need to prepare for an unprecedented flood of mail-in ballots by ensuring the Postal Service has sufficient funding and makes no detrimental changes to their operation that could have a negative impact on elections this fall," Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said at the hearing — raising an issue that is separate from aid to the states, but if unaddressed has the potential to cripple the election.
One witness was Rick Steam, the Republican elections director in St. Louis County, the most populous jurisdiction in Blunt's state. He said 45 percent of votes in local elections in June were cast by mail, quadruple the usual share, and that he's expecting an even bigger vote-by-mail burst in the August primaries and the November presidential contest.
Temporary workers had to be hired to process the deluge last month, he said, and his budget does not anticipate such hiring for two more elections this year.
Congress delivered $400 million to the states in March to smooth their elections, but only if they provided a 20 percent match. The witnesses — including two GOP secretaries of state, Tre Hargett of Tennessee and Mac Warner of West Virginia — pleaded for Congress to release those strings.
Voting rights groups and election officials say another $3.6 billion would be needed to cover all the unanticipated costs. The House has approved that money in its version of the economic rescue bill now being negotiated.
Election officials could use the cash to pay for postage, paper and printing of absentee ballots. It's now too late to buy automated mail sorting systems in time for November, so the money could also be used to hire more human tabulators like the crew in St. Louis.
"Without additional mandates from the federal government or through the courts, we feel good about where we are financially," Hargett testified about the situation in Tennessee, which has strict excuse requirements that hold mail voting to a minimum. "However, if a court decision were to require us to do absentee no-excuse or universal vote-by-mail, that would be a game changer for us."
- Democrats promise more money for elections in next stimulus - The ... ›
- Trump states can't afford smooth elections absent more aid - The ... ›
- Congress flooded with requests for more money for elections - The ... ›
Medill Podcast: Impact of mail-in voting on the presidential election
The Fulcrum is partnering with Northwestern University to co-publish content from the Medill School of Journalism's Covid-19 Analyzer, which is investigating the truth about coronavirus-related claims by people in public life — particularly the pandemic's impact on elections. Read more in the Fact Check section.
Amid fears of a coronavirus resurgence, mail-in voting is at the center of this year's discussion about how to safely and effectively host November's presidential election. Critics argue that voting from home could delay election results, possibly up to a few weeks, and mail-in ballots are susceptible to tampering.
But Audrey Kline, the National Policy Director at the Vote at Home Institute, argues that mail-in ballots could increase engagement and education among voters. On this week's episode, Kline talks about the difference between absentee ballots and mail-in ballots, if voting from home will affect how presidential candidates campaign across the country and how long could voters wait before election results will be released.
- Michelle Obama joins the polarizing cause of universal vote-at-home ›
- Citing coronavirus, Senator proposes $500M for vote-at-home - The ... ›
- Biden backs vote-at-home, says Trump out to undermine election ... ›
- Senators push vote-at-home in virus-related stimulus bill - The Fulcrum ›
- Myth-busting the top 10 objections to 'vote at home' systems - The ... ›
- Get answers to your 2020 voting questions - The Fulcrum ›
- Election experts press media for election night transparency - The Fulcrum ›
- Poll: Voters don't expect to know results on election night - The Fulcrum ›
- The media shouldn't declare a winner on election night - The Fulcrum ›