This is the second in a series of articles introducing you to the Freshmen Class members of the Republican Main Street Partnership. This week: Rep. Randy Feenstra, 52, of Iowa. District/Area Served: Iowa’s 4th Congressional District, representing the northwestern and north central part of the state, including Sioux City, Ames, Mason City, Fort Dodge, Boone and Carroll Background: Feenstra was born and raised in Hull, Iowa, where he has served as City Administrator, Sioux County Treasurer, and Iowa state Senator. Feenstra received a bachelor’s degree from Dordt University and went on to receive his MPA from Iowa State University. After a successful tenure as head of sales for the Foreign Candy Company, he began teaching business and economics classes at Dordt University. He was a leading conservative voice in the state Senate with a record of defending Christian values and fighting for Iowa taxpayers as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Family: Married to Lynette, his wife of 28 years. They have four children ranging in age from 14 to 24. Legislative Priorities: As a member of the Agriculture, Budget, and Science, Space, and Technology Committees, Rep. Feenstra is focused on delivering results for Iowa farmers, families, and main street businesses. He is working to provide pricing transparency in ag markets, ensure workers have the skills they need to succeed in today’s economy, expand high-speed internet access, lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs, and he is fighting against burdensome regulations and taxes that harm workers and business owners. Political Experience: Defeated incumbent Rep. Steve King in the June 2020 Republican primary. As a state Senator and Chairman of the Iowa Senate Ways and Means Committee, he was the key architect of the largest state income tax cut in state history and led the way on reducing property taxes. Feenstra also supported the largest expansion of Second Amendment rights in Iowa history, co-sponsoring the constitutional carry bill, helping stop the implementation of red-flag laws in Iowa, and supporting Iowa’s stand-your-ground law. Media Comment: “Feenstra - a three-term state senator from Hull in conservative stronghold Sioux County who possesses additional experience in public service at local and county levels of government, as well as in business - checks all the right boxes in terms of stands on issues, including domestic economic and social issues” (Sioux City Journal endorsement, 5/31/2020) What advice do you wish someone had given you before you arrived in Congress? It’s important to collaborate with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find agreement where you can, instead of turning everything into a polarizing issue. What’s the question that you wish more people would ask themselves? What am I doing to represent and deliver for my state and the nation, and am I doing this effectively? What does success in 2021 look like for you? Successfully articulating the importance of economic growth by helping our main streets and business community. What do you think is the best path to breaking gridlock in Congress? Collaborating and understanding that everyone sees things through a different lens, so trying to see other people’s viewpoints. Author Mary Parker Follett has a great analogy about this -- playing one piano key cannot make music, but playing multiple keys can create a beautiful song. At what point in your life did you realize you had the power of change or the power to do something meaningful? When I became City Administrator of Hull, I started to realize I could make significant and meaningful change. Margaret Mead said it best, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.” How do you want to be remembered? As a man of integrity, thoughtfulness, and as someone who delivered positive results for our state and country. What’s the best piece of advice you ever received (and who gave it to you)? A CEO once told me it’s better to listen than to always be talking and explaining yourself. Interesting fact that’s not on your resume? I have run four marathons! What advice would you give yourself coming out of college? The harder you work, the more success you’ll find and the more you will accomplish. What’s a book that you give as a gift or recommend most (including a “why” would be great)? I’d have to say there are two: Good to Great by Jim Collins and Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin. Both are great inspirational books for leaders and provide valuable lessons in leadership. What kind of music do you listen to while you’re working? 1980s rock, and the bands Styx and Boston

By Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) When you hear the word infrastructure, what comes to mind? Roads, bridges, locks and dams, and maybe broadband? Well, according to the Biden Administration, infrastructure is just a buzz word for every progressive wish list item under the sun. Sadly, the president’s recent “infrastructure” roadmap takes a very sharp left turn at the expense of American jobs and taxpayers. Last Congress, Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which I serve on, worked together to unanimously pass out of committee two important infrastructure bills to help fix our roadways and waterways. While the water infrastructure legislation became law late last year, the bipartisan highway bill is a great place to start. But instead, the Biden Administration drafted a mammoth, over two trillion dollar proposal that includes everything from elements of the Green New Deal to stripping away state worker laws in favor of Big Labor. (And get this, the progressive caucus thinks they should go even bigger!) From what we’ve seen so far, about less than 6% of President Biden’s plan actually goes to support roads and bridges. More taxpayer money would be spent on electric vehicles than on waterways and roads, like fixing those potholes scattered across town after town throughout this country. And mind you, this shift to electric vehicles will have a devastating impact on Iowa’s ethanol and biodiesel industries, which support our state’s local economies. It’s important to understand how the Biden Administration wants to pay for this ride on the Progressive Policy Train. They want to raise taxes—and not just on American businesses, but on the American people. Recent estimates have concluded that workers could actually bear closer to 50 percent of the burden from this plan’s drastic tax hike. The blunt reality is: higher taxes on American businesses means less jobs and lower wages for American workers. These hikes would also have devastating impacts on the retirement accounts of middle-class families across the country. It’s a mistake to think this would help grow the economy and it’s a stop sign in terms of our economic recovery from COVID-19. Hailing from a very rural part of Iowa, I am all for looking at ways to invest in broadband expansion, to support our roadways, and to make sure we have the right infrastructure in place to combat issues like the recurring flooding in my home state. Those are true infrastructure needs, and ones that I believe would get strong bipartisan support in a 50-50 Senate. But when you start throwing in progressive policy wish list items and non-infrastructure related provisions into one giant proposal, you’re not going to get strong bipartisan support. I’m also a huge proponent of expanding access to child care and making sure it’s affordable for our working moms and dads. It is why I have worked across the aisle on bipartisan legislation to support our child care providers and facilities as well as additional relief during the COVID-19 pandemic. But a serious question we will need to wrestle with is how to define infrastructure and what should be included in a true infrastructure bill. That means we will have to work together to build consensus and both sides must be willing to negotiate. Unfortunately, the Biden “infrastructure” framework is a dead-end street toward helping our communities with their infrastructure needs—all too focused on appeasing the far-Left wing of the Democratic Party rather than serving the American people. The president needs to do a U-turn, because his current plan is going to give taxpayers nothing but higher taxes and road rage. I stand ready to work with Democrats and Republicans on a targeted and true infrastructure plan—one that is focused and a green light towards solving America’s infrastructure needs. Joni Ernst represents Iowa in the United States Senate.

Credit-card use grew over the years because people embraced the idea of buying something today and paying for it out of future income. Democrats still embrace that philosophy; Republicans don’t. Democrats have tried to position Republicans as being anti-Main Street because we voted against the $1.3 trillion COVID relief bill when in fact our real issue was that more than 90% of the bill’s price tag had so little to do with pandemic relief that we couldn’t support it in its entirety. They rammed it through without any interest in bipartisanship merely because “they could.” Now, as we await the outcome of President Joe Biden’s infrastructure bill, we anticipate a similar strategy, one that ends with the Democrats funneling non-infrastructure-related pork into their districts using the reconciliation process. Much of the country’s infrastructure — roads, bridges, public drinking and water systems, dams, airports, mass transit systems, and more – need major overhaul after years of underfunding. The American Society of Civil Engineers gave it a C- in its 2021 Infrastructure Report Card, a slight increase over the D+ the organization assigned four years ago in its last report card. We will continue to support rural broadband as part of a comprehensive bill. We hope to see a funding request for an overhaul of the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure, a bipartisan provision that has been negotiated in discussions between RMSP Member Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware and their Environment and Public Works Committee members. We can also see an infrastructure bill that includes bipartisan provisions for research and development credits for small businesses; carbon-capture technology; IT technology; and initiatives that would improve racial equity in transportation. Road- and bridge-building legislation has a long history of support from both parties. It’s good on a macro level, and it is a great way for legislators to deliver critical project funding to their districts. We are pleased that RMSP House members Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and John Katko of New York were invited to the White House to discuss our priorities with the President, Vice President, and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Our problem is whether we should use tax increases to pay for it, particularly given how much we just spent on non-COVID-related provisions. Like the COVID relief bill, we want to draw some lines as to how the Democrats define “infrastructure” and what gets inserted into that bill that doesn’t directly address our critical needs in that area. And we also are concerned that – like the COVID relief bill – the Democrats will use the reconciliation process to exclude Republicans from the process. We anticipate that the word “sweeping” will be used by the media to describe the bill. If the President follows the shopping list he shared during the campaign, the bill will include at least $2 trillion in “accelerated” investments to shift to cleaner energy; build 500,000 charging stations for electric vehicles, support public transit; repair roads and bridges; create unionized jobs; address climate change; implement policy changes on green energy and immigration; and even make child tax credits passed during the COVID-assistance process permanent. We are cautiously optimistic that the railroading of subsidies for Democratic districts as part of COVID relief will not work for this bill. Some moderate Democrats have raised concerns about blocking infrastructure legislation if Republicans aren’t included. But we’ve seen examples in the past of House Democrats adding provisions at the 11th hour that Senate Republicans just couldn’t support. We will hold Speaker Nancy Pelosi to her description of what the bill should include – broadband, water systems, mass transit, good paying jobs across the country, schools, and housing. The devil, however, is in the details, and after listing those items, she added “and the rest” and that ambiguity is where we’re concerned. At the same time, we will also do our best to hold Biden to his promise not to increase taxes on people making less than $400,000 a year. One of our top priorities this Congress is to work with the Biden administration on an ambitious, bipartisan infrastructure package that maintains, repairs, and invests in America. The time is now for Congress and the Administration to reach across the aisle, unite, and boost investments in our surface transportation network that will move our transportation systems into the 21st century. Investing in our roads, rails, bridges, IT infrastructure, and electrical grid is an investment in our nation, our economy, and our families. Democrats need to avoid once again making this a partisan issue. Sarah Chamberlain is president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which supports a broad alliance of moderate Republicans committed to enacting common-sense, bipartisan legislation on kitchen-table issues. This column first ran on the USA Today Network's Atlantic Region.

By Sarah Chamberlain This column was updated March 18 after the House voted to reauthorize this bill by a 244-to-172 margin, with 29 Republicans supporting it. For the past few years, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAMA) has been stuck in Congress. That’s unacceptable. Legislation that provided essential rights and protections for victims of abuse should never have been allowed to expire in the first place and the situation has been exacerbated over the past 12 months thanks to the multiple stressors brought on by the pandemic have contributed to a sharp increase in domestic violence. This is legislation that Republicans need to rally behind and pass quickly in a bipartisan manner in both chambers of Congress. The House reintroduced the bill on March 8 and H.R. 1620 passed Wednesday, with 21 of RMSP’s members supporting it, including the only two Republican co-sponsors, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania (pictured below) and Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas. It’s legislation that has the strong support of President Biden, who co-sponsored the original bill back in 1994 as a Senator. But the Senate, where 60 votes will be needed, may be another story. The Violence Against Women’s Act was seminal legislation, providing essential rights and protections for victims of abuse. Among other things, it made it easier for women to obtain restraining orders and extricate themselves from abusive relationships. It provided funds for states and communities to offer temporary housing and support for victims. It established new sentencing guidelines for rape and sexual battery to counteract the confounding habit of male judges to let convicted offenders off with little or no prison time. It took away registered guns for minimum periods from those convicted of abuse. The new House bill builds upon previous versions by providing grants and support to various groups that work on issues related to sexual assault and domestic violence and prevention. The legislation was first passed with much fanfare. But like many other bills that involve budgetary outlays, it needs to be regularly re-authorized by Congress to be included in each year’s annual budget. Congress has responded in the past by reauthorizing the bill in 2000, 2005, and finally in 2013 after a notable delay. It came up for reauthorization again in February of 2019. And while reauthorizing the bill should be a slam-dunk every time, since the protections are large and the price tag is tiny, it remains unpassed. House Democrats passed a version of VAWA in April 2019 with 33 Republicans, which would have reauthorized the law for five years, but it got bogged down in the Senate where competing bills from both parties doomed passage and GOP Senators argued against eliminating the “boyfriend loophole” of the existing law and restricting gun rights by preventing people convicted of stalking or abusing dating partners from buying a gun. That restriction is already in place for firearm purchases for spouses or formerly married partners convicted of abuse or under a restraining order. Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, a survivor of sexual assault and an RMSP member, will again lead a Republican effort that seeks to address some of the more problematic gun issues. After the House passed the bill, Ernst expressed willingness to work with Democrats on the topic but said Republicans will likely reintroduce a bill that is different, “taking what we worked on in the last Congress.” She added that she hopes it will be possible to "work through those differences in the two bills, find the areas of agreement, and move forward with a modernized bill." The pandemic’s impact on domestic abuse virtually screams for action. But Congress has responded with indifference. In the meantime, many of the vital protections and resources that the bill provides have just disappeared. We know from our polling at the Republican Main Street Partnership that women of all political persuasions overwhelmingly support the passing of this bill. That alone should provide enough impetus to move forward, yet the reality is exactly the opposite. While women from both parties might agree on a surprisingly large number of basic, quality-of-life issues like this, the extreme ends of the political spectrum, fueled by a sensationalist media, inevitably focus our attention on a handful of issues on which we disagree. But when the Violence Against Women’s Act is held up in Congress, at a time when more women than ever before are being held virtually captive in pandemic-impacted, abusive households, we get nothing. No uproar. No lobbyists. No organized protests. No political pressure at all. And that’s how women—53% of the voting public—can be effectively silenced. When we remain separated into neat (and controllable) segments by political party, geography, race, income, even neighborhood, we live outside the power equation. We allow ourselves to be distracted by dog-whistle politics. Until we can unite our voices, we cannot exert our full power. In the long term, it behooves us to nominate and elect representatives to Congress who not only care about women’s issues but are willing to work across the aisle to help address them. This means as voters we will have to be more active in election primaries, which are currently dominated by the extreme ends of both parties. Electing more Centrists will lead to the type of bipartisan legislation that defined the original Violence Against Women Act. In the short term, we need to demand that our current legislators pay more heed to issues that so clearly impact the lives of women. If legislators suspected that their electoral future was tied to issues like the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, we would see it move from the back burner to the front immediately. You can contact your Senators -- and demand they find a path to passing this bill. We can commemorate the waning days of the pandemic’s impact by striking a blow for women’s rights. But please, do it now. Women across the country who are trapped in abusive households need us to act. Sarah Chamberlain is the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. Photo of Brian Fitzpatrick advocating passage of the VAWA reauthorization in 2019. Credit: Tahirih Justice Center.

This is the first in a series of articles introducing you to the Freshmen Class members of the Republican Main Street Partnership. First up is Rep. Cliff Bentz , 69, of Oregon. District/Area Served: Oregon’s Second Congressional District. It is a largely rural district that covers about two-thirds of eastern Oregon and is one of the largest congressional districts in the country. It is said that the district is larger than any state east of the Mississippi River. Background: Third-generation Oregonian, trained attorney, raised on his family’s cattle ranch in Harney County, Oregon. Family: Married to Dr. Lindsay Norman, a veterinarian, with two children. Legislative Priority: As Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife, Rep. Bentz is focused on advocating for American communities, businesses, utility providers, agriculture, and all those who rely on water resources. He advocates for taking a responsible approach to conservation that promotes a balanced use of natural resources and meets the needs of all stakeholders, including wildlife and the environment. Political Experience: Served in the Oregon Senate from 2018-2020 and represented District 60 in the Oregon House of Representatives from 2008-2018. He replaced Rep. Greg Walden, who supported his candidacy. What Others Say: “Cliff proved in Salem (Oregon) how important it is to work with people regardless of party. He’s one of those people who is focused on getting results, focused on solving problems.” (Former Rep. Greg Walden). “Congressman Bentz brings a wide array of personal experiences and expertise as a water rights attorney to the table, and I know this will equip him to be a strong and thoughtful voice on water-related issues.” (Congressman Bruce Westerman, Ranking Member on the House Natural Resources Committee). “Through his many years in the Oregon Legislature, Congressman Bentz knows first-hand the importance of bridging the urban-rural divide and supporting common-sense solutions regardless of party. His thoughtful and deliberative approach to complex policy is needed now more than ever and we are grateful to have him in Congress working on Oregon’s behalf.” (April Snell, executive director of the Oregon Water Resources Congress) Media Comment: “Bentz is a true product of the community…His expertise in environmental law and water rights as well as his years in the State Legislature wrestling over energy, transportation, and economic policy reflect his ability to drill into arcane details and develop workable solutions.” (The Oregonian Endorsement, 9/27/20). What is a piece of wisdom that nobody shared with you when you first arrived in Congress that would have made a big difference? It would have been nice to know in advance about the potential pitfalls involved with talking to members of the press for the first time. What does success in 2021 look like for you? Finding a way to truly help my constituents. What do you think is the best path to breaking gridlock in Congress? Identity those areas that are least subject to political shrillness, and then find someone in the majority willing to work with you. What’s the question you wish more people would ask themselves? What good is passing a bill if only to see it reversed a few years later when the political winds change? At what point in your life did you realize you had the power of change or the power to do something meaningful? At age 11, when I saw that the publication of a school newspaper could change opinion. How do you want to be remembered? As someone who saw that good could be done by working with others and by better understanding the facts. What’s the best piece of advice you ever received (and who gave it to you)? My dad told me, “The harder you work, the luckier you get.” Interesting fact that’s not on your resume? My brother-in-law is the recording engineer for the Grateful Dead. What advice would you give yourself coming out of college? Take more time off. What is a book that you regularly give as a gift or recommend to others? Too many to count, but most recently “Six Minutes in May” (by Nicholas Shakespeare) and “Let There Be Water” (Seth Siegel) Who or what is inspiring you right now? Those in my freshman class who are here without the benefit of being retired or independently wealthy. What’s the best lesson you learned from your parents? Work harder than anyone else. What’s your go-to song on a jukebox or for karaoke? Certainly not karaoke…but one of my favorite songs is “Hey Jude,” and another one of my favorite songs is “She Talks To Angels” by the Black Crowes.

Column written by Rep. Don Bacon (NE-02) and RMSP CEO Sarah Chamberlain and published in the Omaha World-Herald on March 10, 2021. The Keystone XL Pipeline debate has become a microcosm of everything wrong in Washington today. Like so many critical issues, it has been governed by policy that values rhetoric over facts. What should be a decision best informed by climate scientists and economic experts has instead been hijacked by extremists from both sides, who see it as either a symbol of support for the entire fossil fuel industry or the beginning of the end of the world, depending on which side you’re on. Once you get past the rhetoric, though, the proper course of action becomes clear. Keystone XL expands an existing pipeline that carries Canadian crude oil into the United States. The expansion would allow crude oil brought in by truck and rail to be more safely transported via pipeline from the Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. This pipeline directly travels through Nebraska and affects our economy, energy sector, and the livelihoods of so many. On Jan. 20, President Biden issued an executive order rescinding the project’s border-crossing permit. The decision was a gut punch not only to good-paying union jobs but also to small businesses along the route. Biden based his decision in part on an Obama administration review that advocated for the United States to focus on “the development of a clean energy economy, which would in turn create good jobs.” He cited U.S. “national interest” in letting other countries see America moving away from fossil fuels. But the truth is that the State Department’s environmental impact report said the pipeline expansion would not have a serious or even substantial impact on greenhouse-gas emissions. Killing Keystone won’t keep fossil fuels in the ground; they will still be transported into the United States. An array of environmental experts and groups agree that transporting oil through a pipeline is safer, more efficient and more environmentally friendly than other means of energy transportation. Canada, the world’s fourth-largest oil exporter, sells most of its oil to the United States. Without a pipeline, we could be forced to buy more oil from adversarial states like Russia and Venezuela, even as we move our energy usage toward clean sources. U.S. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, the ranking Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says we don’t need to be killing jobs in the midst of a pandemic for policy decisions that are misdirected at best. Like many of us, she believes we need realistic, all-of-the-above energy solutions that address climate-change risks and keep control of our energy future from China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia without hampering our economy. She supports H.B. 684 — the Keystone XL Pipeline Construction and Jobs Preservation Act — as do I. The fact that the bill’s 125 sponsors are all Republican shows how partisan politics has kept Democrats from reaching across the aisle on an issue in which the facts are so clear. One reason Republicans did well in downstream races in 2020 was this issue. We need to win only a few swing districts to retake control of Congress, and challenging Democrats on energy policies is a likely 2022 strategy. It is not hyperbole to say that H.B. 684 will save energy and construction jobs; protect U.S. national security; keep energy costs low; and promote American-led energy innovation. Oil’s next price boom will scramble industry and political priorities, and we’ll all see that President Biden’s decision was more more controversial than it appears today as it pushes us toward less stable trading partners for oil. Moderate Republicans can provide President Biden with an alternative to aligning with extremists on the left by passing good legislation that preserves jobs and still benefits the environment.

On the surface, the February 2021 jobs report had good news and bad news. The Good: Nonfarm payrolls increased by 379,000 during the month -- versus a Dow Jones estimate of 210,000, with most of the hiring coming in the hospitality sector, which saw 355,000 new jobs. The overall unemployment rate fell to 6.2%, which was a bit lower than the predicted 6.3%. The Bad: The Black unemployment rate jumped to 9.9% from 9.2% in January; education, construction, nursing, and mining all saw job declines; and the numbers remain bleak for people -- particularly women -- who have left the labor force and are not looking for work. U.S. economic activity picked up in February with Covid-19 cases steadily dropping and vaccine rollouts providing hope for more growth. The economy has lost about 9.5 million jobs since the pandemic began a year ago, with about 54% of those jobs once held by women. The challenges are both gender- and racial-based. White women’s unemployment rate is 5.2% and for white men, it’s 5.3%, compared to a pre-pandemic rate of about 3% for both, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on March 5 Chart by CNBC Federal Reserve officials have been watching the jobs numbers closely not only for overall growth in payrolls and a drop in the unemployment rate but also for the breadth of the jobs recovery. The central bank has pledged not to raise interest rates until it sees the gains spread across income, gender and racial lines, even if that means risking higher inflation. And the story there isn’t showing much sign of improvement. Black women were the only group of women to see their unemployment rate rise significantly during the month – up to 8.9% from 8.5% in January. In addition, 11,000 Black women left the workforce last month, while other groups added thousands of workers. For Black women, the unemployment rate has increased over the past two months. Latinas have an unemployment rate of 8.5%. The only group whose rate is higher is Black men with 10.2%. Unemployment rates don’t tell the whole story. The job numbers don’t count workers who have left the labor force and are not looking for work, in many cases because the pandemic has barred them from doing so. That is the case for many women who were forced out of jobs because of childcare responsibilities. If those women were counted, the unemployment rate for women overall would be 8.8% instead of 5.9%, according to an analysis by the National Women’s Law Center. For Black women it would be 14.1% and for Latinas it would be as high as 13.1%. Meanwhile, the share of people who are long-term unemployed — those without work for more than six months — continues to grow. In February, it was 4.1 million, making up nearly 42 percent of the unemployed. The longer workers are out of the labor force, the harder it is for them to rejoin it, and rejoin it in a similar position or for similar pay as they received before. And the cuts for women keep coming in fields like education, where women are more likely to be employed. Health care added 46,000 jobs last month, but the nursing care sector, which predominantly employs women of color, lost 12,000 jobs. Nearly all the job gains came from the battered leisure and hospitality sector, which saw an increase of 355,000 amid a relaxation of dining restrictions in some areas. Bars and restaurants gained 286,000 jobs while hotel-related hiring totaled 36,000 and amusement, gambling and recreation businesses added 33,000. The $1.9 trillion stimulus package, which is waiting for final passage, could provide some relief with family-friendly provisions including nearly $40 billion in funding and grants for the child care industry, $1,400 checks, and the expansion of the child tax credit to as much as $3,600 per child for the youngest kids. An alternative measure of unemployment that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time jobs for economic reasons was unchanged at 11.1%. The March 5 report showed that hiring also was stronger in January than initially indicated, with that month’s tally revised to 166,000 from 49,000. However, December’s count was revised lower from a loss of 227,000 to a drop of 306,000. In addition, the average work week declined during the month as well, falling 0.3 hours to 34.6 hours.

Republicans voted unanimously on March 4 against the For the People Act of 2021, the sweeping voter rights legislation known as H.R. 1, which was also opposed by 16 Secretaries of State, nine former Federal Elections Commission commissioners, the National Disability Rights Network, the Institute of Free Speech, and more than 130 other non-profit organizations. The bill, which passed the House by a 220-210 margin, thanks to unanimity from Democrats is now being considered by the U.S. Senate. As currently written, H.R. 1: Creates a 6:1 funding match to any small-donor contributions of $200 or less in a congressional or presidential campaign. Nationalizes elections and centralizes their administration in Washington, D.C. Makes “pandemic-style” election changes permanent. Forces states to permanently expand mail-in voting, legalize ballot harvesting, and disregard voter ID laws. Disregards state voter identification laws and provisional ballot rules by forcing states to allow sworn statements to be used in place of identification and allowing for signature verification, which can be submitted through a photo if the voter registers online. RMSP Members actively opposed the bill, both before the vote and shortly after. Many referred to it as the “For the Politicians” Act, rather than by the “For the People” name that Democrats gave it. Here are some selected comments from RMSP members during the debate and after the vote. Don Bacon (NE-02): Since 1788, the United States has been conducting free and fair elections, and I made an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes protecting the rights and voices of all Americans, no matter the party. H.R. 1 is an attempt by Speaker Pelosi and the Far Left to federalize our election system in defiance of the Constitution; reverse the longstanding history of state-controlled elections; force American taxpayers to fund campaigns of political candidates they do not support; and mandate ballot harvesting which is now illegal in Nebraska. Nebraska does elections right and does not want to be runover by the Federal government. Protecting state rights is a priority of mine, and this legislation is the “Californication” of our election laws. We do not need more unnecessary, expensive, and federal mandates that endanger the integrity of our elections.” Troy Balderson (OH-12): Do you know what’s in HR 1? This bill would authorize public funding of political campaigns to pay for things like attack ads, social-media ads, and political phone calls. Ohioans do NOT support this abuse of government funds. I cannot support this. Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25): In 1997, the City of Miami had a mayoral election thrown out due to absentee ballot and ballot harvesting fraud. Since then, Florida took steps to fix its election system and prevent this fraud from happening again. Now, Florida’s elections are among the most secure, fair, and trusted in the country. H.R.1 seeks to overturn these changes and make all the practices that Florida once deemed illegal standard procedures for our nation to follow. Additionally, this bill takes all of the worst procedural election changes from 2020, which were purportedly temporary due to the COVID-19 emergency and makes them permanent. If signed into law, H.R.1 would legalize ballot harvesting and disregard voter ID laws. It would also mandate that taxpayer dollars be spent on funding political campaigns. The money of hardworking Americans should not be used by politicians to support their campaigns. A thriving democracy depends on much more than just elections -- it requires trust, transparency, and fairness in our election process. Instead of trying to pass a bill that would expand opportunities for corruption and fraud while further diminishing trust in the integrity of the election process, we should focus on working to rebuild and strengthen that trust -- using Florida as an example. Randy Feenstra (IA-04): H.R. 1 is an effort by Democrats to take election law away from states and put it into the hands of the federal government. Democrats want Washington to have more power so they can single-handedly decide elections and overrule the will of the people. Democrats also want to fund their campaigns with taxpayer money -- your money. And they want to undermine election integrity by legalizing ballot harvesting, expanding mail-in voting without safeguards, and removing voter ID laws. In Iowa, we know how to make our elections safe and secure. I worked hard in the Iowa Senate to pass voter ID, which is critical to any fair election process. Democrats’ attempt to nationalize our elections will undermine the integrity of our electoral process and severely infringe on states’ rights, and that’s why [I was] a strong ‘no’ vote on H.R. 1. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01): Our nation is demanding that we unite to restore, not further erode, faith and trust in our elections and institutions. Mike Gallagher (WI-08): Instead of revitalizing democracy, H.R. 1 takes a number of egregious steps that expand federal power over elections and make the swamp even swampier. Legalizing ballot harvesting and using taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns won’t restore integrity in our system. Instead, it will blatantly violate states' constitutional authority to run their own elections and open a Pandora’s Box that will only continue to fuel confusion and distrust in our election system. Chris Jacobs (NY-24): H.R. 1 would allow public funds to be used to finance politicians’ re-election campaigns. There are far better and more urgent needs for public funds - Democrats are again putting their interests above the needs of the American people. David Joyce (OH-14): We should address the American people’s concerns about elections, campaign finance and voter registration in a constitutional, bipartisan way that preserves the sanctity of the ballot box while also increasing access to it. Instead, the majority chose to singlehandedly craft an 800-page, one-size-fits all mandate that would publicly fund campaigns, weaponize the Internal Revenue Service and Federal Election Commission, limit the First Amendment, and take election decisions away from state and local officials and put it in the hands of the federal government. Ohio’s elections should be run by Ohioans, not by whoever happens to be in charge in Washington. I stand ready to work across the aisle to enact common-sense election reform that empowers state and local officials in making America’s elections more accessible, more secure, and more accurate. Young Kim (CA-39): We must promote free, fair and secure elections so as many eligible citizens as possible can vote and have their voices heard. H.R. 1 fails at doing this and constitutes a massive overreach by the federal government. This partisan bill nationalizes our elections, codifies misguided policies like ballot harvesting, allows public money to fund political campaigns and politicizes the IRS and agencies overseeing federal elections. The last thing we should be doing is further politicizing non-partisan institutions, undermining local election officials' legitimate authority and expanding the worst of California’s election laws nationwide. I’m committed to working in a bipartisan way to protect Americans’ First Amendment rights and empower our state and local entities with the tools to ensure fair and secure elections. David McKinley (WV-01): Democrats are pushing a partisan bill that uses taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns, legalizes voting for convicted felons, and weakens the security of our elections by making it harder to protect against voter fraud. Peter Meijer (MI-03): This bill was an attempt to federalize our elections and overpower states’ constitutional prerogative to set electoral processes. I support federal initiatives to *encourage* states to adopt electoral reforms...but sweeping *mandates* like those included in this bill will only serve to undermine our ability to arrive at the most free and fair elections possible. Carol Miller (WV-03): H.R. 1 is a blatant, costly power grab by House Democrats that limits free speech and stifles Americans’ sacred right to free and fair elections. Pete Stauber (MN-08): H.R. 1 would give more power to D.C. politicians over the states’ legislatures, allow for the public funding of campaigns, legalize voting for convicted felons, & weaken election security. Bryan Steil (WI-01): H.R. 1 guts voter ID laws, legalizes ballot harvesting, and publicly funds politicians’ reelection campaigns. Not once have I had someone tell me that the problem with our system is that there is not enough money in elections. H.R. 1 weakens election integrity, and I will continue working to move our country in the opposite direction of this bill to restore confidence and strengthen our system.

This column by Republican Main Street Partnership CEO Sarah Chamberlain was first published on the USA Today Network and on Yahoo! News. The New York Times reported in late January on a surge in student suicides in Las Vegas, noting that Clark County reported 18 suicides over nine months of school closure – double the number of the entire previous year. Many of my female friends share my concerns about the impact of COVID on their school-aged children for reasons ranging from: Lack of physical contact with friends at school and elsewhere. Growing inability for parents to balance work responsibilities with adequate oversight of younger children. The challenge of remote learning, including its impact on high schoolers’ grades and SAT scores as they apply to college, with little ability to visit campuses. College students (particularly first years) studying and trying to socialize from their bedrooms instead of enjoying normal on-campus activities and interactions. According to data from the World Health Organization, someone commits suicide every 40 seconds – 800,000 per year – and for every suicide, 20 more were attempted. That means 5-7 people will commit suicide during the time it takes you to read this column. One in five COVID-19 patients develops a mental-health problem. According to a Center for Disease Control and Prevention study, the proportion of children’s mental health-related emergency department visits among all pediatric ED visits increased starting in April 2020 and remained elevated through October. Compared with 2019, that figure increased 24% for children aged 5-11 and 31% for children aged 12-17. The CARE humanitarian organization issued a report last September stating that women were nearly three times more likely than men (27% vs. 10%) to report their mental health had been impacted by the pandemic, citing issues such as skyrocketing unpaid care burdens and worries about livelihoods, food, and health care. Women were nearly twice as likely as men to report having trouble accessing health services, including access to maternal, sexual, and reproductive health. The report also noted a global rise in exposure to gender-based violence, with part of that due to COVID-19 lockdowns. In addition, calls into crisis hotlines that normally decrease by 30% or more over the summer increased last year. A higher proportion of these calls actually came by text from teens stuck at home and not wanting to be noticed reaching out, which reduces the ability to have a dialogue. In addition, more than a third of youth receiving mental health services in the United States get them in an academic setting. With so many school facilities closed, mental-health advocacy groups say historically marginalized student demographics such as Black, Latino, and LGBTQ children are at even greater risk. In recent days, the focus has shifted to how Congress and the Biden Administration can address this part of the growing public-health emergency. On Feb. 1, 27 U.S. Representatives asked House leadership to accelerate bringing 13 bills back to the floor that were passed in 2020 but did not become law despite bipartisan support. That’s not an uncommon problem in this era of gridlock and hyper-partisanship, but it is unconscionable. And then there’s the IMD Exclusion. About one in eight visits to hospital emergency rooms involve a mental health or substance use condition. Very few of those people end up in beds because of a federal policy called the Institutions for Mental Disease (IMD) Exclusion. The IMD Exclusion was part of the 1965 law that established Medicaid. It prevents the program from funding care for mentally ill adults while they live in hospitals or even adult homes with more than 16 beds. It basically created a financial incentive for states to kick the mentally ill out of hospitals. As a result, the country has lost more than 450,000 beds since the 1950s. COVID-19 has exacerbated the problem. Reports across the country are surfacing about the closing of psychiatric beds as COVID-19 patient numbers increase. In some cases, patients are being discharged even though many still showed signs of psychosis and mania. Those closures are forcing patients to turn to community organizations that help people outside of hospitals, but those organizations are struggling to meet that need. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) have led bipartisan efforts to repeal the IMD Exclusion. Fitzpatrick has said “the IMD exclusion has turned into federally mandated neglect of those suffering from mental illness. Repealing the exclusion will remove a major barrier to care for patients and make our communities healthier.” Readers should reach out to their representatives to support these efforts. Beyond that, the Biden administration needs to focus some of its public-health messaging on mental health and behavioral issues, including stress and coping strategies; support easy-to-access psychoeducational webinars for Americans who are at higher risk and need intensive, brief intervention; and offer training for all licensed counselors, social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists who need help with delivering effective services during the pandemic, while reducing the difficulty in being reimbursed for those services. While it’s true that these initiatives will require federal investment, an investment in mental health pays off by both breaking the destructive socioeconomic cycles that result and by increasing the quality of life for individuals and families everywhere. Sarah Chamberlain is president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership, which supports a broad alliance of moderate Republicans committed to enacting common-sense, bipartisan legislation on kitchen-table issues. This is a follow-up to a column she wrote in October 2020 for Forbes magazine. Mental-health related bills that need Congressional attention The letter signed by 27 Representatives highlighted the following 13 mental-health related bills passed by the 116th Congress but not signed into law that they’re urging congressional leaders to move forward without delay: H.R. 1646, the HERO Act (Elise Stefanik, R-NY-21) H.R. 5572, The Family Support and Services Act (Elise Stefanik, R-NY-21) HR 4564, the Suicide Prevention Lifeline Improvement Act (John Katko, R-NY-24) HR 5469, Pursuing Equity in Mental Health Act (Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-NJ-12) HR 2466, the State Opioid Response Grant Authorization Act (David J. Trone, D-MD-06) HR 5855, the Bipartisan Solution to Cyclical Violence Act (C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-MD-02) HR 1109, the Mental Health Services for Students Act (Grace F. Napolitano, D-CA-32) HR 2519, the Improving Mental Health Access from the Emergency Department Act (Raul Ruiz, D-CA-36) HR 7293, the STAND UP Act (Scott Peters, D-CA-52) HR 3539, the Behavioral Interventions Guidelines Act (Drew A. Ferguson, R-GA-03) HR 4585, the Campaign to Prevent Suicide Act (Donald S. Beyer, Jr., D-VA-08) HR 4861, the Effective Suicide Screening and Assessment in the Emergency Department Act (Gus. M. Bilirakis, R-FL-12) HR 5619, the Suicide Prevention Act (Chris Stewart, R-UT-02) If you are having thoughts of suicide, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-8255 (TALK). You can find a list of additional resources at SpeakingOfSuicide.com/Resources. Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto/Penn Today

Politico caught up to Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) on Feb. 25 and the RMSP member -- a five-time Emmy Award-winning journalist -- didn't pull any punches, building on her encounter with Stephen Miller the day before at the Republican Study Group's weekly lunch meeting. Reporting by Politico's Sarah Ferris and Melanie Zanona. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) has a message for her party: “I am a brown girl from the ‘hood, who is a Republican, who is coming to tell my party that it’s time to wake up and smell the votes.” “It's time for us to be sending the right message to the largest minority in the country. We are 20 percent of the population. We are 60 million people ...We are 30 million votes available,” Salazar told your Huddle host in an exclusive interview Thursday. This is also the message she delivered behind closed doors to former Trump aide Stephen Miller during the Republican Study Committee’s weekly lunch meeting on Wednesday, which was focused on immigration. Salazar attended the event, but she is not a member of the RSC. “I told him that the GOP needs to attract the browns,” said Salazar, a Cuban American. “We, for the last 30 years since Ronald Reagan, have not sent the right message to the browns,” she added. “Reagan was the last guy who gave a path to citizenship to 3 million people … 35 years ago. It’s time for us to do the same thing that Reagan did.” Your Huddle host and Melanie Zanona scooped the details of Salazar’s exchange with Miller on Wednesday, in which she challenged him to explain how Republicans could broaden their coalition while enacting his preferred immigration policies. Elaborating on the encounter on Thursday, she said that most Hispanics share the same values as Republicans: They’re God-fearing, law-abiding, tax-paying, family-oriented fans of small government. “They want to live in dignity,” she said. “And that is what we have to give them. That’s what I said to Stephen Miller in front of 20 to 30 members from his study group. And I would say that the overwhelming majority of those members agreed with what I was saying, including Miller.” Salazar stressed that she “absolutely” supports border security to keep out “bad people,” drugs and human trafficking — including child sex trafficking. But she argued that the whole U.S. immigration system needs fixing, from the undocumented to the asylum process to the immigrant kids stuck in large orphanages rather than foster care. “We have to look at the whole enchilada.” Salazar’s focus, she said, is on the undocumented immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for more than five years, have American children and have been paying taxes. “That’s what I’m concentrating on. We got to give them dignity — and I’m talking about legality. I am not talking about citizenship right now.” Salazar plans to meet with Miller again soon to discuss her ideas in more detail. She noted he was “courteous” and “attentive” during their exchange. COMING UP? While Salazar wouldn’t get into the granular details of which particular immigration policies she supports, she said she is “working on something very important” that she will share in the future. As for Biden’s bill: “My concern is that this immigration bill that was presented by the Biden administration may never become law, and then once again the Browns will be left hanging. And that is what we need to avoid.”

Defending Main Street, the Super PAC for the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP), will more than triple its support for centrist Republican candidates during the 2022 election cycle, pledging to spend at least $25 million in congressional swing districts to take back the Senate and House from Democrat control. “We are looking for principled candidates who put governing above rhetoric, country above party, and will reach across the aisle to pass legislation that isn’t driven by hyper-partisan voices,” said RMSP CEO Sarah Chamberlain, whose members include more than 60 moderate Republicans serving in Congress. In 2020, Defending Main Street spent $8 million on critical races across the country through its PAC Defending Main Street, which supported Randy Feenstra in his primary race against incumbent Rep. Steve King in his Iowa congressional primary and then in the general election when he won the seat. RMSP has released a post-election analysis of the 2020 cycle that lays out its argument for a post-Donald Trump GOP as a party that can harness the frustration of some voters toward him while attracting more suburban and minority voters and bringing back Republicans who have re-registered as Independents. “We can’t lose a generation of 18-to-21-year-olds who register as Democrats because they’re watching what’s going on and saying they can’t relate to that,” said Chamberlain. “We have to focus on the constituencies that swing House seats and Senate seats. If they leave, we may not get them back.” RMSP's "Road to Resurgence" report focuses on the factors that will enable Republicans to move forward as a party, starting with a re-emphasis on such traditional GOP bread-and-butter strengths as the economy, foreign policy, and national security. The report also lays out ways to restore the party's "ethics and moral standing" that RMSP believes has been undermined by extremist messaging and reinforce moderate Republicans' believe in fiscal conservativism, social inclusiveness, and passing legislation on such kitchen-table issues as healthcare (including pandemic-related mental health concerns), family issues, workforce development, the environment and energy (including clean water) and transportation/infrastructure. Even though Trump lost his re-election bid, many Republicans saw a silver lining in November’s election results as the party narrowed the Democratic House majority with swing-seat wins, demonstrating that disillusioned voters were open to distinguishing between Trump and other Republicans. Readers interested in supporting the effort to recapture the House and Senate can do so through RMSP’s PAC site and clicking on the Donate button.

The following article was written by Repubican Rep. John R. Curtis (UT-03), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and U.K. Parliament Member Alicia Kearns, a Conservative MP on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and the National Security Strategy Joint Committee. It was published in The Times, Britain’s oldest national daily newspaper. The two members argue that Conservatives should be taking the lead in tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our time— with the opportunity to forge effective and durable climate policies in both of our countries, determine how those solutions can be scaled globally, and drown out the voices of extremism that threaten people’s livelihoods and our economies. You can also read this article on Rep. Curtis' website In both of our countries, the left has historically dominated the conversation on climate change. In recent years, conservatives have crafted new ideas that will allow us to be better stewards of the environment, create new good-paying jobs, and ensure energy security for future generations. In the UK, Extinction Rebellion has demanded the UK reach net zero by 2025, blocking public transportation and preventing the delivery of right-leaning newspapers. In the US, progressives on the left have called for a “green new deal.” The concept has huge public spending implications, not only for clean energy but also for non-climate-related domestic liberal priorities. Ultimately, this proposal would cost trillions of dollars while not addressing the core issue, increasing international emissions, particularly from China. Neither of those paths constitute sensible, deliverable climate policies. We agree that addressing climate change will require bold and innovative policies, but the left’s approaches would put our countries at an international competitive disadvantage, which neither country can afford, and increase the government’s involvement in citizens’ lives, which is unacceptable. Simply put, those approaches are a threat to both our prosperity and liberty—and would hamper the very innovation required to reduce emissions. Instead, we need pragmatic solutions that empower individuals and businesses to innovate and invest in clean technologies that will cut emissions while supporting jobs and spurring economic growth. That requires recognition that private markets are uniquely positioned to deliver at the scale necessary to address climate change and that the principal role of government should be to create markets that incentivize individuals and companies to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. In the UK, despite the environment being a key component of the Conservative Party’s policy agenda, and successive Conservative governments having cut emissions by almost 30 per cent over the past decade while growing the economy, climate change is still regarded as a left-wing issue. Meanwhile, many Republican legislators in the US have often evaded grappling with the issue altogether. The truth is, on both sides of the Atlantic, many of our colleagues on the right have been absent from the climate debate because they have been unsure of the conservative solutions or have been deterred by a movement that too often couches its argument in anti-free market rhetoric. We need to stop the culture of “shaming” where any effort to reduce emissions is labelled “not enough”. Many small actions can lead to big change, and applauding positive efforts will result in more momentum for change than shaming ever could. Indeed, some policy progress has already been made in recent years. The Conservative government in the UK has legislated to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. In both of our countries, the use of renewable energy is increasing, which has dramatically brought down costs. Meanwhile, coal use is declining — in the UK through deliberate policy and in the US as a consequence of cheaper alternatives and falling demand. The US, abundant in natural resources, is in a perfect position to cleanly develop natural gas that could be deployed around the world. This will not only support our allies abroad with a cleaner energy source, but also ensure they don’t become reliant on less reliable foreign sources such as China or Russia. Do not doubt our commitment to the environment or our ability to meet the scale of the challenge. Conservative leaders from the UK and US have worked together to solve environmental challenges before. It was Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who spearheaded the Montreal protocol to cut chlorofluorocarbons to protect the ozone layer. True conservatives value conservation and the environment, it is in our name after all. The future prosperity and security of our countries, as well as the political success of our parties, require conservatives to lead in tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our time. If we do so, we have the opportunity to forge effective and durable climate policies in both of our countries, determine how those solutions can be scaled globally, and drown out the voices of extremism that threaten people’s livelihoods and our economies. https://curtis.house.gov/editorial/the-left-should-not-dominate-the-conversation-on-climate-change/