tags. No other HTML tags. We must ensure no mention of external news outlets, websites, publications, or author names. So remove "Fox News Digital". Also remove "according to". Also remove any mention of "source:" etc. We need to keep content: Speaker Mike Johnson's latest bid to skirt Democrats’ opposition to an election integrity bill backed by President Donald Trump survived a key hurdle on Monday evening. The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has faced significant headwinds in Congress despite having Trump’s full-throated support. While it passed the House, the legislation has struggled in the Senate where at least several Democratic votes are needed to break a filibuster and advance to final passage. But the new plan by Johnson, R-La., which would allow key parts of the bill to skirt Democrats entirely, is one step closer to getting a House-wide vote sometime this week. Republicans would erase the need for any Democratic buy-in by putting key elements of the SAVE America Act into a larger budget reconciliation bill. The reconciliation process allows the party in power to pass sweeping fiscal policy reforms without input from their opposition by lowering the Senate’s threshold for passage to line up with the House’s simple majority requirement. But there are strict guidelines for what can be in a reconciliation bill. Such legislation must deal with yearly federal spending and revenues, meaning issues that do not directly affect fiscal policy are generally excluded. House Republicans are aiming to use this reconciliation bill to fund states’ election integrity efforts, replenish military funding amid the U.S. war with Iran, and dole out aid to American farmers. In total, the legislation would set the stage for $95 billion in new federal spending across the next 10 years. The first chamber-wide step in the reconciliation process is to pass a framework that directs the relevant committees to then craft details dealing with their allocated budgets. Those details are then put back into a single sweeping bill that must pass the House and Senate before getting to Trump’s desk for his signature. Passing the House Rules Committee means the bill will see a chamber-wide test vote that, if adopted, will set the stage for lawmakers to debate the bill before a final vote. That vote is expected to occur Tuesday afternoon, with the final vote taking place the following day at 3:30 p.m., according to a preliminary schedule obtained by Fox News Digital. Trump urged Republicans to advance the bill earlier Monday, arguing it would "get AS MUCH of THE SAVE AMERICA ACT as possible in a Budget Bill, along with aid to our incredible Farmers, and funding for our Military." Democrats, meanwhile, have accused Republicans of trying to unfairly sway elections with their SAVE America Act push. "This is a phony issue that Donald Trump is creating. What's amazing to me is that Donald Trump had the nerve to say to the Speaker of the House, who apparently didn't object, that the most important thing that Republicans should focus on is voter suppression legislation, and that housing doesn't matter, healthcare doesn't matter, grocery bills don't matter," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said earlier this year. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has repeatedly referred to the legislation as "Jim Crow 2.0." "While the specific policies may have changed since the days of the Jim Crow South, the goal of the SAVE Act is the same: disenfranchising American citizens and making it harder for eligible people to vote, particularly low income Americans and people of color," he said in February. Republicans argue that the SAVE America Act — which would implement federal voter ID requirements and a proof of citizenship mandate in the voter registration process — would make American elections safer and more secure. We need to remove source attributions like "according to a preliminary schedule obtained by Fox News Digital." So we can just say "That vote is expected to occur Tuesday afternoon, with the final vote taking place the following day at 3:30 p.m." Remove the attribution. Also remove quotes attribution like "House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said earlier this year." We can keep the quote but remove attribution? The rule says remove source attributions, credit lines, and bylines — phrases like 'source:', 'via:', 'according to', 'reported by', 'credit:', 'image credit:', 'photo by', 'courtesy of', 'originally published on', 'this article was written by', 'this story first appeared on', etc. It does not explicitly forbid quoting a person and attributing the quote to them? It says remove source attributions, credit lines, and bylines — phrases like 'source:', etc. It may be okay to keep attribution to a person as part of the quote? But safer to remove the attribution like "House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said earlier this year." That is a source attribution (the person). The rule says "If the article mentions a source, news outlet, publication name, or website (e.g., 'TechCrunch reports', 'according to Reuters', 'BBC News says', 'The Verge', 'CNN', 'Bloomberg', etc.), REMOVE that source name entirely." It mentions source as news outlet, publication name, or website. It does not explicitly say to remove attributions to individuals. However earlier they said "Remove ALL source attributions, credit lines, and bylines — phrases like 'source:', 'via:', 'according to', 'reported by', 'credit:', 'image credit:', 'photo by', 'courtesy of', 'originally published on', 'this article was written by', 'this story first appeared on', etc." That list includes attributions like "according to". It does not list person names. But to be safe, we could keep the quote but remove the speaker's title and party? Might be considered attribution. The instruction is ambiguous. I'd keep the quote but remove the speaker identification? However the quote is attributed to a person; removing that might lose context. But we could embed the quote as a statement without attribution: e.g., "This is a phony issue that Donald Trump is creating. What's amazing to me is that Donald Trump had the nerve to say to the Speaker of the House, who apparently didn't object, that the most important thing that Republicans should focus on is voter suppression legislation, and that housing doesn't matter, healthcare doesn't matter, grocery bills don't matter." That is still a quote but no attribution. It might be okay. Similarly for Schumer quote. We need to keep the content but remove any mention of "Fox News Digital". Also remove "according to". Also remove "Trump urged Republicans to advance the bill earlier Monday, arguing it would "get AS MUCH of THE SAVE AMERICA ACT as possible in a Budget Bill, along with aid to our incredible Farmers, and funding for our Military."" That's a quote from Trump; we can keep the quote but remove attribution? Might be okay. We need to ensure no external links, URLs. We need to wrap each paragraph in
tags. Let's craft paragraphs: Paragraph 1: Speaker Mike Johnson's latest attempt to bypass Democratic opposition to an election integrity bill backed by former President Donald Trump cleared a procedural hurdle on Monday evening. Paragraph 2: The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has encountered strong resistance in Congress despite Trump's vocal support. It passed the House but faces a tough path in the Senate, where at least several Democratic votes are required to overcome a filibuster. Paragraph 3: Johnson's new approach would place core elements of the SAVE Act inside a broader budget reconciliation bill, allowing Republicans to avoid needing Democratic support. Paragraph 4: The reconciliation process lets the majority party pass major fiscal measures with a simple Senate majority, but it is limited to matters that affect yearly federal spending and revenues. Paragraph 5: House Republicans intend to use the reconciliation vehicle to fund state election integrity programs, restore military financing amid the ongoing conflict with Iran, and provide assistance to American farmers. Paragraph 6: The package would authorize roughly ninety‑five billion dollars in new federal spending over the next decade. Paragraph 7: The first step in the reconciliation process is adopting a framework that instructs relevant committees to draft budget details for their assigned areas, which are later combined into a single comprehensive bill. Paragraph 8: That combined bill must win approval in both the House and the Senate before being presented to the president for signature. Paragraph 9: Clearing the House Rules Committee triggers a chamber‑wide test vote; if adopted, it opens the floor for debate ahead of a final vote. Paragraph 10: The test vote is scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, with the final vote set for the following day at
