WHIP LIST: McCarthy searches for 218 GOP Speakership votes

A narrower-than-anticipated House Republican majority and a growing number of House Republicans expressing opposition to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) are threatening to derail his bid to be Speaker of the House.

McCarthy won his party’s nomination for Speaker this month but needs to secure a majority of all those casting a vote for a specific candidate in a Jan. 3 House floor vote in order to officially be elected Speaker.



Support from 218 House Republicans, marking a majority of the House, would shore up his position. 

A Speaker can be elected with fewer than 218 votes if there are absences, vacancies or some members vote “present,” but McCarthy does not have much wiggle room. Democrats will have around 213 seats, and all are expected to vote for a Democratic Speaker nominee. Republicans will have around 222 seats. 

McCarthy maintains confidence that he will win the Speakership, but around five House Republicans have already signaled they will not support McCarthy’s Speakership bid on the floor, likely already putting him under 218 and throwing his position into dangerous territory. Several others are withholding support, too, without necessarily saying they will vote against McCarthy on Jan. 3.

Opposition to McCarthy

Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.)

Biggs, a former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, mounted a last-minute challenge to McCarthy for the House GOP’s Speakership nomination, when he got 31 votes to McCarthy’s 188, and five others voted for other candidates. After the nomination, Biggs said he will not vote for McCarthy to be Speaker.

“I do not believe he will ever get to 218 votes, and I refuse to assist him in his effort to get those votes,” Biggs tweeted.

He cited McCarthy’s not promising to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas as one reason for withholding support. On Tuesday, McCarthy called on Mayorkas to resign, saying House Republicans will investigate and consider opening an impeachment inquiry if he does not.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.) 

“Kevin McCarthy will revert to his establishment mean the moment he gets power, and that’s why there are enough of us now, a critical mass, standing as a bulwark against his ascension to the Speakership,” Gaetz said on former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon’s “War Room” show on Tuesday.

Gaetz additionally told reporters on Nov. 15 that he would vote for someone other than McCarthy on the House floor on Jan. 3.

Rep. Bob Good (Va.)

“I will not be supporting him on Jan. 3,” Good said on "John Fredericks Radio Show" on Tuesday. He added that he thinks there are “more than enough” members who are “resolved not to support him” and deny McCarthy the Speakership.

The freshman Virginia congressman, who ousted former Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.) in a 2020 primary, previously said on the same radio show that he had confronted McCarthy about his tactics during a House GOP conference meeting before the Speaker nomination vote. Good took issue with a McCarthy-aligned PAC spending millions to support certain Republicans in primaries over others, and noted that McCarthy had endorsed Riggleman in his 2020 primary.

“He admitted there at the mic, though, that he spent money in these races based on who would support him for Speaker,” Good said.

Good has also said that he believes there are a “dozen or so” House Republicans who will oppose McCarthy on the House floor.

Rep. Ralph Norman (S.C.)

Norman’s opposition to McCarthy centers around the budget. Norman said he asked McCarthy to adopt a model seven-year budget crafted by the Republican Study Committee, which included $16.6 trillion in cuts over 10 years. 

“Just a solid 'no' led me to believe he's really not serious about it,” Norman said on Bannon’s “War Room” on Tuesday.

The slim House GOP majority, he added, provides an opportunity for hard-line conservative members to pressure McCarthy and push for their priorities.

Norman first revealed his opposition to McCarthy to Just the News, and clarified to Politico that he will vote for someone other than McCarthy to be Speaker – and will not vote “present.”

Rep. Matt Rosendale (Mont.) 

Rosendale, a freshman, has signaled opposition to McCarthy for Speaker.

“He wants to maintain the status quo, which consolidates power into his hands and a small group of individuals he personally selects. We need a leader who can stand up to a Democrat-controlled Senate and President Biden, and unfortunately, that isn’t Kevin McCarthy,” Rosendale said in a tweet after McCarthy was nominated to be Speaker. 

Additional McCarthy skeptics and unknowns

Several other conservative members have indicated that McCarthy has not yet earned their support, or declined to answer questions about McCarthy’s Speakership altogether. 

Rep. Scott Perry (Pa.)

Perry, the current chair of the House Freedom Caucus, has repeatedly said that McCarthy does not have support from 218 members.

“It's becoming increasingly perilous as we move forward,” Perry said of McCarthy’s position in an interview last week.

Perry has been pushing McCarthy and House GOP leadership to implement rules changes that, on the whole, would give more power to rank-and-file members and lessen that of leaders. But he is not committing to vote against McCarthy at this time. 

“I’m not making my position known,” Perry said in an interview last week. “I do have an open mind, but I also see what’s happening.”

Rep. Chip Roy (Texas)

Roy has similarly said that McCarthy does not have majority support for Speaker, but has not said how he intends to vote on the House floor on Jan. 3.

“Nobody has 218, and someone's going to have to earn 218,” Roy said last week.

In addition to also pushing for a more open process, Roy has expressed that he does not think House GOP leadership’s commitments to investigate the Biden administration are aggressive enough. He is also a supporter of withholding funding unless the Biden administration ends COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the military.

Rep. Dan Bishop (N.C.)

Bishop said that his vote for Speaker hinges on more than rules changes.

“What it is about more now is whether somebody can seize the initiative to come up with a creative approach to sort of recalibrate how this place works in hopes of moving off the status quo and making it effective for the American people,” Bishop said in a brief interview last week.

“At this moment, I'm open to anyone seizing the initiative in the way that I described,” Bishop said.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (Ga.)

“Well, I will tell you that you’ll know that on January the third,” Clyde said on "John Fredericks Radio Show" on Monday when asked whether he would vote for McCarthy. “We’re still having negotiations.”

Rep. Barry Moore (Ala.)

Moore said in a brief interview last week that he is waiting to see how negotiations on rules changes go, but he was not necessarily a hard “no” on McCarthy.

“We won't really know until Jan. 3 how things shake out,” he said.

Hard-line members supporting McCarthy

Not all members of the House Freedom Caucus or the more confrontational wing are united in their antagonism of McCarthy. In fact, some are strong supporters.

Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio)

Some conservatives have suggested Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a founding Freedom Caucus member who challenged McCarthy for GOP leader in 2018, as an alternative Speaker candidate. But Jordan, who is likely to chair the House Judiciary Committee, has thrown his support behind McCarthy.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)

The firebrand Georgia congresswoman was once a doubter of McCarthy’s ability to become Speaker, but has now become one of his most vocal supporters for the post. Greene, who has said McCarthy will have to “give me a lot of power” to make the GOP base happy, said she is working to convince her fellow conservative members to vote for McCarthy.

Greene has warned that moderate Republicans could join Democrats and elect a compromise moderate Speaker, but McCarthy skeptics have dismissed that prospect as a red herring.

Rep. Randy Weber (Texas)

Weber, a House Freedom Caucus member, said he is pro-McCarthy for Speaker.

“He's poured his heart and guts and soul out into building this conference,” Weber told The Hill last week. “I've been here 10 years. ... I've never seen the conference in better shape than it is now.”

On Thanksgiving, I remember my Jewish ancestors who left Europe and am thankful America took them in

“I’ve got something I’d like to say.” That’s what I usually offer up as a preamble, as I try to get the attention of my kids and other family members gathered around the Thanksgiving table. It usually takes a couple of attempts, but once we’re all on the same page, I offer words of thanks for my ancestors. I talk about how brave they must have been to leave the communities of their birth—which were at least familiar, despite the hardship, discrimination, and all-too-common violence they faced—and come to a land where they didn’t speak the language, didn’t know the culture, and, in many cases, didn’t know a soul.

In this offering, I mention the family names of the people who came and the places they came from. We’ve done quite a bit of genealogical research—on my side and my wife’s side of the family—and are lucky to have as much information as we do. My goal is to give my kids a sense of who their ancestors were, and what they went through to give us a chance to have the life we do here in America. One branch of my father’s family came from Vilnius, now the capital of Lithuania; another from Riga, Latvia’s capital; another from Minsk, the capital of Belarus; and the last from Odesa, now in Ukraine—a country fighting back with growing success against Putin’s vile aggression.

Growing up, I had learned that all my father’s ancestors were “Russian.” It turns out none of them came from places that are now in that country—and let’s hope its borders don’t expand any further.

The story is similar on my mother’s side. One branch was described to me as Austrian; in fact, they came from Skole in today’s Ukraine. The other was Hungarian, and came from Sighet (Elie Wiesel’s hometown) in Transylvania, now a province of Romania. During my Thanksgiving meal talk, I also thank my wife’s family, who came from Vienna, Poland, and Russia. In reality, the primary point of identification in terms of culture and identity for all these people was not the country of origin on their passport, but the fact that they were members of the Jewish people, irrespective of any particular level of belief or religiosity.

In addition to being Jews, the family ancestors I’ll be acknowledging were also, of course, Americans. And that’s the other part of the thanks I’ll give on the holiday. I’m thankful that my ancestors had a place to go, that they could become Americans and make a life here.

The last of them got in just under the wire, arriving a few months after the First World War and only a couple of years before a series of immigration “reforms” severely limited the number of immigrants our country accepted from outside the British Isles and northwest Europe. My wife’s grandmother’s family got out of Poland in 1937—and only because the youngest child had been born here (it’s a long story); one of the oldest living “anchor babies,” I’d surmise. Very few Jews were able to find refuge here at that point and immediately afterward—during the years when they needed it most.

I make sure my kids know about these restrictions on immigration, as well as the fact that people coming from Asia had almost no chance to emigrate and become U.S. citizens until the early 1950s. We also talk about how—although their ancestors and other Jewish immigrants certainly didn’t have it easy—they at least had opportunities that America denied to the large numbers of African Americans and American Indians who had arrived long before our family. America didn’t treat everyone living here equally, either on paper or in practice. Certainly, as the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Patrick Lyoya, and too many others have reminded us, we’ve still got room for improvement on that front as well, to say the least—although we have come a long way thanks to those heroes who fought and bled to get us as far as we have come.

Over the course of four long years, the twice-impeached former guy made the process for coming here far more difficult, far more treacherous, for refugees and asylum-seekers. But thankfully, The Man Who Lost An Election And Tried To Steal It was unsuccessful in that endeavor, and we now have a far more humane president—one who led the Democratic Party to its best midterm performance in six decades. These are developments for which my family and I are deeply thankful, for many reasons.

Contrast Trump with the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) of Pennsylvania, who, for more than a decade, have organized a Thanksgiving event in Philadelphia specifically for immigrants. Over 100 people shared the holiday meal in 2019:

Vanessa, who declined to give her last name, says the event is exactly what she and her family needed after being under the threat of deportation.

"We couldn’t miss it today, because recently my parents were in deportation court," she said.

Vanessa says she's thankful her family can stay together just in time for the holiday.

If that organization sounds familiar, it might be because of the wonderful work it does on behalf of immigrants, or it might be because the terrorist who killed 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh specifically mentioned HIAS in a post just a few hours before committing that mass murder:

A couple of hours before opening fire in a Pittsburgh synagogue, Robert Bowers, the suspected gunman, posted on the social network Gab, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.” HIAS is the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, and Bowers had posted about it at least once before. Two and a half weeks earlier, he had linked to a HIAS project called National Refugee Shabbat and written, “Why hello there HIAS! You like to bring in hostile invaders to dwell among us?” Another post that most likely referred to HIAS read, “Open you Eyes! It’s the filthy EVIL jews Bringing the Filthy EVIL Muslims into the Country!!”

So while I’m thankful to our country for taking in my family, and so many others, I am aware that not everyone approves of America’s generosity, or the support Jews have generally shown for it. There’s another person, whose family is also Jewish and from Eastern Europe, who expressed a sense of gratitude that reminded me of my own. This person did so in the context of coming forward to testify in an impeachment inquiry focused on Donald Trump. He has faced antisemitism from the Tangerine Palpatine and his allies in retaliation for stepping forward and telling the truth. Here are the words of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, words that make me proud to share my heritage with this man:

Next month will mark 40 years since my family arrived in the United States as refugees. When my father was 47 years old he left behind his entire life and the only home he had ever known to start over in the United States so that his three sons could have better, safer lives. His courageous decision inspired a deep sense of gratitude in my brothers and myself and instilled in us a sense of duty and service. All three of us have served or are currently serving in the military. Our collective military service is a special part of our family’s story in America.

I also recognize that my simple act of appearing here today, just like the courage of my colleagues who have also truthfully testified before this Committee, would not be tolerated in many places around the world. In Russia, my act of expressing my concerns to the chain of command in an official and private channel would have severe personal and professional repercussions and offering public testimony involving the President would surely cost me my life. I am grateful for my father’s brave act of hope 40 years ago and for the privilege of being an American citizen and public servant, where I can live free of fear for mine and my family’s safety.

Dad, my sitting here today in the US Capitol talking to our elected officials is proof that you made the right decision forty years ago to leave the Soviet Union and come here to United States of America in search of a better life for our family. Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth.

Thanksgiving—at least in the form we celebrate in this country—is an American invention, and also a holiday about each of our relationships to America and to our fellow Americans. It means different things to different people, depending on how their ancestors were treated. For me, America is my home, the only one I’ve got. It is the place that made my life and my family possible. My membership in the American people, the diverse yet singular American national community, is central to my identity.

We are living in a time when, once again, demagogues are playing on our deepest fears to argue against taking in people fleeing oppression in their homelands, just as was the case in 1939. Demagogues are also casting doubt on the loyalty of Jewish Americans who were born elsewhere, just as was the case in the Dreyfus Affair over a century ago. Antisemitism is on the rise from across the political and ideological spectrum—although the most dangerous anti-Jewish hatred comes from the right wing.

I am truly grateful for what America did for me—taking in my ancestors when they needed a place to go. I know many others will end up being far less fortunate. They are the ones we have to fight for now.

This is an updated version of a piece I have posted the last few years on Thanksgiving.

Top Republican says congressional investigations don’t have much credibility: ‘I blame Adam Schiff for that’

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who is expected to become chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee next year, said he blames Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) for what he sees as lowered credibility of congressional probes. 

Schiff chairs the House Intelligence Committee and sits on the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol — and the California lawmaker also led the first impeachment effort against former President Trump.

“I don’t believe congressional investigations have a whole lot of credibility right now. I blame Adam Schiff for that,” Comer told Punchbowl News in an interview published Wednesday. 

“But it’s also both parties to blame for investigations in the past. But I really want to change that,” said Comer.

The top Republican is among many in the party planning to take advantage of the GOP’s takeover of the House majority to investigate topics like the origins of COVID-19, the U.S.-Mexico border crisis, the country’s messy withdrawal from Afghanistan and President Biden’s son Hunter Biden and the family’s business dealings.

Comer is gearing up to take leadership of the House Oversight and Reform Committee from outgoing Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who has been leading the panel in a probe into Trump’s mishandling of presidential records.

Comer told Punchbowl News that he won’t “abuse the subpoena ability” when he assumes the chair position, and that the panel will be “very selective” in issuing subpoenas.

 “So when you get a specific subpoena from Oversight when I’m chairman, then it’s going to mean something,” Comer said.

DHS pushes back against McCarthy call for Mayorkas to resign or face potential impeachment

DHS on Wednesday pushed back against Republican calls for Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign or face impeachment when Republicans take the House early next year.

Lawmakers fret over another holiday punt on government funding

Congress is in a familiar mode this holiday season: increasing worry about missing a government funding deadline.

With the Dec. 16 deadline rapidly approaching, leading lawmakers haven't even made the critical first step to agree on overall spending levels — raising the chances of a stopgap patch needed to avoid a shutdown just before the holidays.

Democrats' unexpectedly strong midterm performance, a Senate runoff in Georgia on Dec. 6, contentious GOP leadership elections and shifting dynamics for both parties have all delayed progress toward cementing even the beginnings of a broader funding deal for the current fiscal year.

Republican Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a top appropriator, laughed when asked about meeting the mid-December deadline: "I just don’t think that’s going to happen,” he said. “There’s just too much confusion going on."

The muddle carries serious stakes for a multitude of government programs, not to mention the future of congressional spending debates. Lawmakers fear that any funding bill they can agree on before 2023 might be the last one Congress passes for at least the next two years due to a slew of factors, including a slim incoming House majority that's already splintered over federal spending and a presidential election that looms in 2024.

In lieu of annual appropriations bills, Congress could pass continuing resolutions that allow federal agencies to operate on stagnant funding levels, often hamstringing programs and priorities in the process. How long such a funding patch would last is still unclear — possibly punting the problem closer to the holidays or the last week of December — though lawmakers are determined to pass a revamped spending deal before the next Congress.

House Appropriations Chair Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said last week that she's “laser-like” focused on meeting the mid-December date.

“I think people want to try to move forward,” she said. “That’s the impression that I have, to get the toplines done.”

DeLauro’s GOP counterpart, Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, said negotiations “are starting to get together.”

“We haven’t come to conclusions but we are talking,” Granger said. On meeting the Dec. 16 deadline, she said: “Yes, we’ll do it.”

Retiring Senate Appropriations Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) also indicated last week that congressional spending leaders are making progress toward an agreement on overarching funding levels for defense and nondefense programs, from which a deal on a dozen appropriations bills would flow. But he conceded that the Senate runoff in Georgia could delay talks, after negotiators had already postponed talks due to the midterm elections.

“I wish it wouldn’t. It’s possible. But the sooner we do it the better,” Leahy said.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior House appropriator, said lead negotiators Leahy, DeLauro, Granger and Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Senate's top GOP appropriator, "haven't even gotten into serious negotiations yet ... and that’s a problem.”

When asked if he’s making holiday plans in case the work drags on, Cole said, “Nope. Washington is beautiful when it snows.”

Congressional spending leaders have been hoping to nail down a fiscal 2023 funding accord before January, when the GOP regains a slim majority in the House and a whole new session of Congress begins — with a host of brand new members unfamiliar with the appropriations process.

Even Republicans admit that passing annual spending bills will be much harder in 2023 with such a narrow House majority, arguing that it makes more sense to wipe the slate clean before the start of the 119th Congress.

“As fractured as we are on a lot of other issues, there’s probably no better indicator of the fractures in our caucus than those on federal spending,” said Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas, the top Republican on the Financial Services spending subcommittee. He noted that his colleagues are split over various parts of the appropriations process, including whether to keep earmarks, slash federal spending or crack down on the IRS.

“I’m loath to tell you this but I wouldn’t expect any clarity on [government funding] until the very week that we begin to lapse in appropriations, because that has become the new normal in Congress and that is regrettable,” Womack said. “We are unaware of any serious negotiations going on at all.”

Leahy and Shelby, two long-time dealmaking partners and appropriating powerhouses, are both retiring at the end of the year, ramping up the pressure for one last bipartisan deal. But even if appropriators hammer out an agreement in such a short time, there are complicated questions over what will get attached to the $1.5 trillion-plus government funding package, since it will likely represent one of lawmakers' last chances this term to get priorities onto a must-pass package.

The Biden administration has already asked for nearly $38 billion in additional Ukraine aid and $10 billion in emergency health funding, of which $9 billion would go to address current and long-term Covid needs. The White House plans to ask for additional disaster relief to address hurricanes and wildfires this year, as well.

Republicans aren’t likely to support the administration’s call for more Covid-19 funding, rejecting a $22 billion request from the White House earlier this year. And a number of conservatives have argued that the U.S. needs to shut off the spigot of military assistance to Ukraine, calling for further evaluations into the cash Congress has already sent.

Congress has so far provided about $66 billion for Ukraine and other war-related needs. The administration argues that about three-quarters of that funding has either been spent or is committed to specific purposes.

Many lawmakers worry that passing the massive package could prove impossible next year. Rep. David Price of North Carolina, the retiring top Democrat on the Transportation-HUD spending subpanel, said it all needs to come together soon because appropriating next year “will be very, very hard.”

“I think appropriations needs to function with at least minimal bipartisanship,” he said. “It’s all the more reason to get fiscal 2023 enacted.”

Posted in Uncategorized

Democratic strategists launch ‘war room’ project to investigate and unmask GOP House inquisitors

If Hunter Biden’s alleged substance abuse issues, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s COVID-19 strategy and alleged relationship to China, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ immigration policies are fair game for exploration in House Republicans’ planned, upcoming Benghazi-style show trials, then it only seems fair that Rep. Jim Jordan’s alleged enabling of sexual predators, the ties of Rep. Paul Gosar and others in the Republican Party to virulent white supremacist organizations, even Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged afterparty cocaine antics get similar scrutiny. After all, the American people certainly deserve to be fully apprised of the character of the people most responsible for these hearings in order to best make an informed judgment.

Although they won’t have the ability to issue the subpoenas themselves, there is nothing stopping Democrats or their agents from researching public records or conducting detailed interviews with folks who have first-hand knowledge of the sterling character qualities of these House Republicans, all of whom appear so intent on highlighting their own moral authority in these hearings. It might also prove useful to understand exactly who funds their campaigns to satisfy American citizens that there are no hidden interests motivating them in their official duties.

Others appear to agree. As reported by Heidi Przybyla and Jordain Carney for POLITICO, Democratic strategists have launched a “war room” that’s dedicated to exploring, highlighting and publicizing the character and connections of the very Republican inquisitors (and their colleagues) who will be inflicting this investigation-o-rama upon the American people.

RELATED STORY: GOP holds first press conference after midterms and says it only wants to talk about Hunter Biden's laptop

As Przybala and Carney write:

The newly relaunched Congressional Integrity Project initiative, details of which were shared first with POLITICO, will include rapid response teams, investigative researchers, pollsters and eventually a paid media campaign to put congressional Republicans “squarely on the defense,” founder Kyle Herrig said in an interview.

The “multimillion dollar” effort is designed to create an effective counter-narrative that will be impossible for anyone to ignore (except, perhaps, Fox News).

It’s designed to serve as the party’s “leading war room” to push back on House Republican investigations, Herrig said in an interview. He added that the project would “investigate the investigators, expose their political motivations and the monied special interests supporting their work, and hold them accountable for ignoring the urgent priorities of all Americans in order to smear Joe Biden and do the political bidding of Trump and MAGA Republicans.”

The project (which, according to POLITICO, has been cleared by Democratic House leadership) will “immediately” target the chairpersons and lead participants of these investigations. That laudable goal notwithstanding, there appears to be no reason for this project to limit itself to merely unmasking Republicans on the Oversight Committees alone. Hunter Biden, for example, is a private citizen whose name Republicans (like Gaetz, for example) have seen fit to drag through the mud at every turn.

RELATED STORY: Let's look at the case against Hunter Biden and his laptop: A photo essay

Likewise, Fauci holds no elected post in government. If Republicans intend to score their political points at the expense of intruding on these people’s privacy and personal lives—or cast unfounded aspersions on their alleged motivations—they would appear to have forfeited the right to protest any counter-investigations and publication of the foibles of their own colleagues and associates: 

As the old saying goes, “What’s good for the goose …” 

One of the leaders of the project, Democratic strategist Brad Woodhouse, emphasized to POLITICO that their group will employ “every tactic available” in order to ensure that we Americans, forced to witness these spectacles, will have a clear picture of these Republican interrogators and their motivations. The project will also employ the services of former Obama administration officials, as well as senior aides and advisers from President Joe Biden’s transition team and former Senate office.

As Przybyla and Carney explain:

The Congressional Integrity Project is also aiming to raise funds for a paid media campaign, including dedicated websites, digital ads, mobile billboards, newspaper ads and, occasionally, TV ad buys. Its public opinion research will be shared with like-minded organizations and congressional allies to contrast GOP investigations with issues the American public cares most about, project leaders said.

Their overall goal is to ensure that the Republicans’ planned inquisition prompts a voter backlash from Americans dismayed at these pointless, staged fiascos, and specifically seeks to ensure there is no repeat of Republicans’ colossally wasteful, two-year “Benghazi” debacle.

So, by all means, let the games begin. No doubt there are some families of Ohio State alumni, at least, who might express an interest. 

As Rev. Sen. Raphael Warnock prepares for his Dec. 6 Senate runoff against Republican Herschel Walker, Warnock and the people of Georgia need all the help we can give. Click here to donate $3 or more to Team Warnock today!

McCarthy calls on DHS Secretary Mayorkas to resign, threatens impeachment inquiry

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) called on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign over his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that GOP lawmakers will consider impeachment next year if he does not step down.

“If Secretary Mayorkas does not resign, House Republicans will investigate, every order, every action and every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” McCarthy said at a press conference in El Paso, Texas, on Tuesday.

McCarthy cited the Department of Homeland Security head's statements to Congress that the border is under control, record border crossing numbers and his ending of the "Remain in Mexico" asylum policy instituted during the Trump administration as reasons for resignation.

“Our country may never recover from Secretary Mayorkas’s dereliction of duty,” McCarthy said.

The comments from the minority leader are his strongest words on impeachment to date, but they fall short of a promise to bring up articles against Mayorkas.

McCarthy was nominated by House Republicans to serve as Speaker in the next Congress last week during a closed-door vote.

But he still faces opposition from hard-line conservatives, who called on him to be more aggressive on topics including the impeachment of Biden administration officials and President Biden himself.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), the former chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, mounted a last-minute protest challenge to McCarthy for Speaker, citing the minority leader's lack of commitment to impeach Mayorkas. Biggs has previously introduced articles of impeachment against the administration official. He won 31 votes in the secret-ballot House Republican Conference meeting, while McCarthy received 188.

McCarthy needs support from a majority of those voting for a Speaker candidate on the House floor on Jan. 3 in order to be elected to the post.

But Republicans won a narrow majority in the 2022 midterms, and McCarthy has little wiggle room for error on that vote. A few Republicans, including Biggs, have indicated that they will not vote for him.

The press conference with other House GOP members came after a day of touring the U.S.-Mexico border and meeting with border officials.

McCarthy said that Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and James Comer (Ky.), the likely chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees next year, “have my complete support to investigate the collapse of our border, and the shutdown of ICE enforcement.”

“Leader McCarthy is right. Americans deserve accountability for the unprecedented crisis on the southwest border. Republicans will hold Secretary Mayorkas accountable for his failure to enforce immigration law and secure the border through all means necessary,” Jordan, who would oversee impeachment proceedings if they occurred, said in a statement distributed during the press conference.

Republicans made a pledge to investigate the Biden administration’s border and migration policies a key part of their midterm campaign message, and Comer has long said he will hold hearings about the border. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) joked in September that the House GOP would give Mayorkas a reserved parking spot because he would be testifying so often.

Mayorkas, who has no plans to resign, pushed back on Congress in a statement issued shortly after McCarthy's speech.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people. The Department will continue our work to enforce our laws and secure our border, while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement.

“Members of Congress can do better than point the finger at someone else; they should come to the table and work on solutions for our broken system and outdated laws, which have not been overhauled in over 40 years,” the statement continued. 

In appearances before Congress last week, Mayorkas maintained that the border is under control, but he acknowledged that the fiscal year ending in September showed that a record 1.7 million migrants attempted to cross the Southwest border.

“The entire hemisphere is suffering a migration crisis. We are seeing unprecedented movement of people from country to country,” he said.

He also pledged to look for new ways to restrict immigration now that a federal court has struck down Title 42, which allowed the agency to quickly expel migrants without seeking asylum due to public health concerns.

Mayorkas said the department is currently evaluating how to expel Venezuelans at the border, a group that makes up a large part of migrants coming to America given the political and economic instability there.

The latest calls for Mayorkas to resign come shortly after U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus resigned from his position after being asked to do so by President Biden.

McCarthy first appeared to open the door to impeachment of Mayorkas at another press conference in April. 

“This is his moment in time to do his job. But at any time if someone is derelict in their job, there is always the option of impeaching somebody,” McCarthy said at an April press conference in Eagle Pass, Texas.

But he later tamped down expectations for impeachment, saying that he does not want the procedure to be political as he claimed Democrats' impeachment of former President Trump was. McCarthy reiterated that sentiment on Tuesday in El Paso.

“We never do impeachment for political purposes. We’re having investigation,” McCarthy said. 

“We know exactly what Secretary Mayorkas has done. We've watched across this nation, something that’s never happened before. We watched him time and again before committee say this border is secure, and we can't find one border agent who agrees with him,” McCarthy said. “So we will investigate. If investigation leads to impeachment inquiry, we will follow through.”

Rebecca Beitsch contributed.