McCarthy feels the heat as frustrated conservatives grow more aggressive

Posted on June 28, 2023 (Updated June 28, 2023) by Mike Lillis

Six months into the new Congress, Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is increasingly bending to the demands of the conservative fringe of his GOP conference, a dynamic highlighted this week by his surprise threat to impeach U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The Speaker has, to an extent, been successful in disarming his conservative detractors through the first half of the year, winning their support in January’s race for the gavel and sidelining them more recently in adopting must-pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling.

But frustrated conservatives are getting more aggressive, threatening to tank federal funding bills and risk a government shutdown while pushing harder to force the impeachment votes GOP leaders have sought to avoid.

The dynamics reflect the bald political reality of governing with a tiny and restive House majority, one in which the conservative distrust of the Speaker runs deep and GOP leaders have little room for defections when their legislative priorities come to the floor.

The result has been that McCarthy is compelled, more and more, to act on the demands of the small but pugnacious group of conservative firebrands who have threatened his Speakership from the first days of January and are vowing to exert their leverage to obtain their legislative objectives.

“I am maybe not on his Christmas card list,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, of his antagonistic relationship with the Speaker.

McCarthy has gradually responded to the conservative demands simply by conceding to them.

In recent weeks, the Speaker has catered to his right flank by targeting next year’s spending at levels below those outlined in the bipartisan debt limit deal. He’s endorsed a resolution to censure Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) after an initial vote splintered the GOP. He’s swallowed a vote to impeach President Biden — even if only to punt the issue to committee.

He’s championed resolutions to expunge the two impeachments of former President Trump. And most recently, he’s adopted a harder line on the ouster of cabinet officials, like Garland.

“If the allegations from the IRS whistleblowers are proven true through House Republican investigations, we will begin an impeachment inquiry on Biden's Attorney General, Merrick Garland,” McCarthy tweeted Tuesday.

That position is a major shift for the Speaker, who has been cold to the idea of rushing into impeachments this year, warning against politicizing the process and arguing for the conclusion of congressional investigations before launching any impeachment proceedings. But impatient conservatives have other ideas.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) last week forced the vote on Biden’s impeachment and is threatening to bring it to the floor again if the committees of jurisdiction don’t act quickly enough for her liking.

“I would hope that it would be this year — and very soon,” Boebert said as Congress left Washington last week for a long July Fourth recess.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has introduced impeachment articles targeting at least four administration officials, including Biden and Garland, and is warning she’ll use special procedures to fast-track those bills to the floor.

And Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said this week Garland might be just the start.

“It’s hard to keep up with it all,” Roy told WMAL radio on Monday.

“We gotta look into [Alejandro] Mayorkas,” he continued, referring to the Homeland Security secretary. “We gotta look into Biden himself. We gotta look into Hunter Biden. … The American people deserve an administration that is not above the law and lawless.”

Even more pressing than impeachment has been the internal GOP battle over deficit spending. McCarthy, as one of the many concessions to his conservative critics in January, vowed a push to cut next year’s spending back to last year’s levels — a reduction of roughly $120 billion below the spending caps agreed upon in the debt ceiling deal.

McCarthy, backed by Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger (R-Texas), is vowing to make good on that promise, targeting 2024 spending at 2022 levels. But the conservatives are skeptical, accusing the Speaker of using budget “gimmicks,” known as rescissions, to claim savings that won’t materialize.

“One place I’m pretty firmly planted is, we had an agreement on fiscal year 2022 discretionary spending levels as a fundamental component of the Speaker’s contest and the agreement that resolved that. I believe that needs to be honored,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).

“I don’t know how, precisely, we’ll get it resolved.”

Opposition from only a handful of conservatives would be enough to block the Republicans’ appropriations bills, raising the likelihood McCarthy will have to slash 2024 spending even further — at least in the initial round of House bills — and heightening the odds of a government shutdown later in the year, when Senate Democrats inevitably will oppose those cuts.

In the eyes of Democrats, McCarthy has become captive to a small conservative fringe for the sake of retaining his grip on power.

“The Speaker is catering to an extreme element in his caucus, and I don’t even think the majority of his caucus agrees with that position,” Rep. Annie Kuster (D-N.H.), head of the New Democrat Coalition, told reporters last week.

Democrats are not the only critics. The conservatives’ threat to oppose their party’s spending bills is also frustrating more moderate Republicans and leadership allies, who say the hard-liners are ignoring the political reality of a divided government.

“When it’s all said and done, you're gonna end up with the debt ceiling agreement,” said centrist Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.). “Because the Senate’s not gonna go more conservative, and we’re not gonna let them spend more.”

Complicating McCarthy’s balancing act has been the candidacy of Trump, who remains the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination despite a long trail of legal and ethical troubles, including recent indictments over his handling of classified documents.

In an interview with CNBC on Tuesday morning, McCarthy, who has not endorsed a 2024 candidate, raised the question of whether Trump is the strongest Republican contender to challenge Biden next year. The remarks reportedly sparked an outcry, forcing McCarthy to shift gears and hail the former president’s recent poll ratings.

“Just look at the numbers this morning,” McCarthy told Breitbart News several hours later. “Trump is stronger today than he was in 2016.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

GOP unrest: Conservatives threaten to tank party’s 2024 spending bills

Posted on June 16, 2023 (Updated June 16, 2023) by Mike Lillis

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is seeking to appease his conservative agitators by targeting next year’s federal spending at last year’s levels.

It’s not going well.

A long list of conservatives left Washington this week accusing McCarthy and other GOP leaders of using budgetary “gimmicks” to create the false impression that they’re cutting 2024 outlays back to 2022 levels, rather than adopting the fundamental budget changes to realize those reductions and rein in deficit spending over the long haul.

The hard-liners are already threatening to oppose their own party’s spending bills when they hit the House floor later this year, undermining the Republicans’ leverage in the looming budget fight while heightening the chances of a government shutdown.

More House coverage from The Hill

The internal clash would also be an enormous headache for the Speaker, who’s already under fire from conservatives for his handling of the debt ceiling debate and faces intense pressure to hold the line on spending in the coming battle over government funding.

“He's not doing ‘22 spending levels; he’s talking ‘22 spending levels,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), former head of the far-right Freedom Caucus, said Thursday. “Talk is cheap.”

Biggs and a number of other conservatives fear that GOP appropriators intend to use a budgetary tool known as a rescission in the drafting of their 2024 spending bills. Rescissions essentially claw back spending that Congress has already appropriated for future programs, allowing appropriators to claim they're funding the government at one level while actually spending at another. The hard-liners say that mechanism will lead to higher deficits than they're ready to support.

“The idea of saying that we’re marking to 2022, but we're going to buy up to 2023 marks with rescissions, just — to me that's disingenuous,” Biggs said.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) speaks to reporters before a press conference held by the House Freedom Caucus regarding the proposed Biden-McCarthy debt limit deal on Tuesday, May 30, 2023.

Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), another Freedom Caucus member, agreed.

“My understanding is they're going to use ‘23 numbers, and then through rescissions, get back to ‘22 numbers. So if they don't get the rescission, then they don’t get the ‘22 number,” Buck said. “The whole predicate is, ‘We're going to do this with rescissions,’ and then the rescissions don't happen, and then everyone says, ‘Well, that wasn't my fault.’”

Buck said he hasn’t voted for any appropriations bill “in a long time.” And without more drastic cuts and fundamental structural changes, he’ll likely oppose this year’s bills, too.

“To go off the cliff at the ‘22 pace is not much different to me than going off the cliff at the ‘23 pace,” he said.

The opposition is significant because Democrats are already up in arms that McCarthy is targeting 2024 spending figures below the caps he negotiated with President Biden in this month's debt ceiling agreement. They’re vowing to oppose any appropriations bills that fall below those figures — leaving McCarthy with little room for GOP defections given the Republicans' slim House majority.

“It's our view that a resolution was reached, and was voted on in a bipartisan way, and at the end of the day, any spending agreement that is arrived at by the end of the year has to be consistent with the resolution of the default crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Thursday in the Capitol.

“Otherwise, what was it all for?”

The issue of government spending has been at the center of the battle this year between McCarthy and the hard-line conservatives, who had sought in January to win a promise from the Speaker to cut 2024 spending down to 2022 levels — a reduction of roughly $130 billion from current spending. The conservatives were furious that, as part of this month’s debt ceiling deal between McCarthy and Biden, next year’s spending came in above that figure, essentially frozen at 2023 levels with a 1 percent increase slated for 2025.

McCarthy has responded by claiming the topline figure he negotiated with Biden was merely a ceiling, not an objective. He’s instructed appropriators to target 2024 funding below that cap, and Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, announced this week that she’ll do just that.

“The Fiscal Responsibility Act set a topline spending cap – a ceiling, not a floor – for Fiscal Year 2024 bills,” Granger said in a statement Monday. “That is why I will use this opportunity to mark-up appropriations bills that limit new spending to the Fiscal Year 2022 topline level.”

Yet the conservatives are far from convinced.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) hailed Granger for putting out the statement. “But what I'm hearing,” he quickly added, “is that the intention is to claim 2022 [levels], and then utilize rescissions to take it back up to 2023, and claim that's some kind of a victory.”

“We need true 2022 levels, and then we ought to be utilizing targeted cuts and rescissions to go beneath that, not pretend 2022 levels plussed-up with rescissions,” he said.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) speaks to reporters as he heads to the House Chamber for a series of votes on Tuesday, June 6, 2023. (Greg Nash)

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) delivered a similar warning this week, saying the key issue is “the paradigm around what constitutes 2022 spending levels.”

“We don't think you oughta be able to buy your way into those spending levels with rescissions. We think that you ought to appropriate to that level. Because if you're only able to get to the 2022 levels with rescissions, then the budgetary process is void of the programmatic reforms that are necessary,” Gaetz said.

“My concern with [Granger's] statement is that it seems still that 2022 levels are a term of art, rather than a term of math,” he continued. “I'm worried that Chair Granger's statement reflects a willingness to only get to 2022 spending levels through rescissions, which is not going to be palatable for my crew.”

Neither Granger’s office nor McCarthy’s responded to requests for comment Thursday.

The conservative criticisms have raised new questions about McCarthy’s ability to keep the confidence of his restive conference while cutting deals with Democrats to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. The Speaker has said the hard-liners are being unrealistic about governing in a divided Washington — but his arguments have failed to make those conservatives back down.

“Nobody wants a shutdown,” Gaetz said. “But we’re not gonna vote for budgetary gimmicks and deception as a strategy for funding the government.”

Mychael Schnell contributed.

How a Bush-era law requiring border ‘perfection’ stands at center of GOP impeachment case

Posted on February 14, 2023 (Updated February 14, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

A budding GOP impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is relying on a 2006 law that says operational control of the border means the prevention “of all unlawful entries” to the United States — a standard seen as impossible to meet.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was passed during a failed Bush-era effort to move a comprehensive immigration reform bill. In the fallout, House Republicans rushed to show they were taking action on border security, requiring the installation of intermittent fencing along the southern border.

Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Gregory Payan/AP Images for NFL)

But a provision of the law defining operational control is now at the center of the new House GOP majority’s effort to impeach Mayorkas, who is accused of lying to Congress when he’s said the border is secure.

“Secretary Mayorkas does not think that the border is open. He thinks that he has operational control, although the Secure Fence Act of 2006 clearly defines what operational control of a border is, and that means that no contraband or individual can come into the country illegally,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, a conservative Republican from Arizona and one of two members who have formally introduced articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“And yet, under his watch, Secretary Mayorkas has allowed in approximately 5 million illegal aliens coming through, and that doesn’t include got-aways,” added Biggs.

Republicans argue that Mayorkas has been ineffective in managing what they see as a crisis, as record numbers of migrants attempt to cross the southern border. It’s a failure they contend is a violation of his oath of office.

“He has taken an oath, a constitutional oath, to obey the laws of the United States and protect us,” said Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas), who this year filed the first articles of impeachment against Mayorkas.

Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jess Rapfogel)

“In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was passed which requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to maintain the operational control of the southern border. He has clearly not done that,” Fallon said.

Democrats and other critics of the GOP case argue that the differences between Republicans and Mayorkas are largely policy issues that don’t rise to the level of impeachment.

“Impeachment covers treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It's not typically envisioned as covering policy disputes, or disagreements on policy, which seems like what these are,” said Dave Rapallo, a Georgetown Law professor who also worked with Democrats on the impeachment of former President Trump.

He and others argue that the 2006 law lays out an impossible standard — but includes clear language that gives the secretary the discretion to determine how to meet it.

“Congress has delegated to the secretary of Homeland Security the decision to determine what is 'necessary and appropriate.' And that's what the department is doing. There may be a difference of opinion about whether that happens with walls or other mechanisms to prevent unlawful entry,” Rapallo said. “But if the standard is that not one migrant can get into the United States, that’s a standard no secretary of Homeland Security would ever meet.”

Doris Meissner, who ran the Immigration and Naturalization Service under former President Clinton and how heads the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute, said the standard "isn't something that we ask of any other law enforcement regime."

Previous Homeland Security secretaries, Democrats and Republicans, have not been removed over the standard highlighted by Biggs and Fallon.

“The assumption with having law enforcement at all, is that there are laws and there will be a degree to which laws are broken, and law enforcement, and law enforcement systems, and structures are in place to keep them to a minimum and to create accountability if they do happen," said Meissner.

Biggs himself acknowledged the standard that no one or thing can enter the country illegally for the DHS secretary to not be impeached is a high one. But he argues Mayorkas still deserves to be impeached because of how he has handled border security.

“While that particular statute requires perfection, which we all recognize is an impossible task, the American public still trusts him to do his very best to secure operational control of the border. He necessarily has the ‘public trust,’ and as a Cabinet secretary, he is a public man,” he wrote in an op-ed shortly after introducing his resolution.

“The case against Alejandro Mayorkas … does not necessarily turn on whether Mayorkas has actually committed a statutorily defined black-letter crime. It is whether he has committed a ‘high crime’ as that term is understood under the U.S. Constitution.”

The fencing bill was passed after two competing comprehensive immigration reform bills moved through the House and Senate in 2005.

The House version, led by former Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), was a security-focused immigration crackdown; the Senate version led by former Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) paired border security and guest worker provisions with a broad legalization program for undocumented immigrants.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Jan. 29, 2008 (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

To no one's surprise, the House and Senate were unable to find a middle ground in conference, and the two bills failed in the lead-up to the 2006 midterm elections.

“There really was a strong feeling, in the Senate in particular, that people had to go home with something to show for immigration, in order to be running their campaigns, and having some kind of a message to take back to their constituents,” said Meissner.

“So they passed this act quite hurriedly in October of 2006, right on the cusp of the elections. It just had this sort of sweeping mandate, which really hadn't been tested or vetted with the executive branch,” she added.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), one of the co-sponsors of the 2006 border bill, described the legislation as tasking the Homeland Security secretary to determine where to put fencing.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)

“It was our intention to put a fence not everywhere but where it made sense to put the fence on the border, you know, [in] more populated areas to have the infrastructure in place to stop illegal crossings,” he said, noting along with specific mileage of fencing, “we gave discretion to the secretary to use his or her judgment as to where to put it.”

McCaul, a stern Mayorkas critic who has directly admonished the secretary in hearings, has likewise criticized members of his party for rushing a process he said should be handled by committees of jurisdiction who can investigate and build a strong case for impeachment.

“You can make the case to the American people without having to do it overnight. We criticized the Democrats for impeaching Trump in one day. ... We shouldn't make that same mistake,” he told The Hill.

Mayorkas and his department are now gearing up for a fight.

The department initially declined to assign specific staff to deal with impeachment, but on Friday confirmed it had hired an outside law firm to aid in any eventual impeachment hearings.

It’s also shifted tone in its public statements on impeachment developments, attacking the credibility of the resolutions directly.

“Instead of pointing fingers and trying to score political points, the Members of Congress recklessly and baselessly pursuing impeachment should work on legislative solutions for our broken immigration system,” DHS said last week when Biggs’s resolution was introduced. 

Republicans have rolled out other arguments for impeachment, including one that mirrors a recent lawsuit from a number of GOP-led states challenging a program that allows 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela to be “paroled” into the country each month, while quickly expelling to Mexico an equal number of migrants from those countries who show up at the border.

The resolution deems the current use of parole an abuse, calling it a way to "'legally’ admit aliens.”

Biggs and other Republicans are also basing their impeachment case on a broader claim — dismissed as a conspiracy theory by Democrats — that the Biden administration is intentionally loosening border controls.

“First of all, when we look at that intentionality, this is done intentionally,” Biggs told reporters last week. “This is not negligence, it is not by accident. It is not incompetence, and how do we know that? Well, just like we look at a culpable mental state, like intentionality or knowledge, we look at a totality of circumstances."

Biggs said the evidence of intention is in Mayorkas ending a series of Trump-era border policies, a move that many Republicans believe is the direct cause of increased migration in the Western Hemisphere, presumably knowing his policies would result in increased border crossings.

But whether Republican leadership decides to forward any impeachment resolution, the process could face a substantial roadblock in the Democratic-controlled upper chamber.

“A majority of the House could just decide to impeach the secretary based on whatever it puts in its resolution,” Rapallo said. “But that's highly unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.”

Republicans introduce second impeachment article for Mayorkas

Posted on February 2, 2023 (Updated February 2, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

GOP lawmakers banded together to file an additional resolution that would impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, filing a second bill to do so less than a month into the new Congress.

The resolution filed Wednesday comes after its sponsor, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), promised a resolution with “even more justification” than a first resolution filed immediately after the Speaker’s race concluded.

Biggs called Mayorkas “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border” in a press release announcing the move and argued the uptick in migration is a result of a “willful and intentional” violation of Mayorkas’s oath of office.

But Biggs’s efforts clash with those in the party who say impeachment should follow a thorough inquiry, a promise House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made in November when he said the GOP would “investigate every order, every action” to determine whether to begin an inquiry.

House Republicans are split over how to pursue the topic and how speedily to do so.

“We made the argument that impeachment was rushed — the second impeachment — and I think that’s not who we are as a party,” Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) previously told The Hill in reference to the second impeachment of former President Trump.

He said it’s the committees of jurisdiction that should be leading the inquiry.

“We need to have hearings on this and we need to gather evidence and facts and, look, do I think the guy has done a terrible job? Yes,“ McCaul said. “Do I think he’s been derelict in his responsibilities? Yes. But we need to get all this together, and do it in a methodical way.”

Biggs's resolution is largely based on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which requires the Homeland Security secretary “take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control” of the border.

But the law, true to its name, primarily deals with fencing. It says the the secretary should weigh operational control for the border in regards to both surveillance and “physical infrastructure enhancements.”

Only one Cabinet member has been impeached in history — former President Grant’s secretary of war, William Belknap, who was accused of taking kickbacks from a contractor he appointed to run the trader post in Fort Sill, Okla. Belknap resigned before facing an almost-certain Senate conviction, a fate that’s unlikely to play out with Mayorkas given the Democratic majority in the upper chamber.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) didn’t immediately respond to request for comment, but the agency has previously noted Mayorkas has no plans to resign.

“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,” DHS said after the introduction of the first resolution.

“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 they have not updated in over 40 years.”

GOP divided in rush to impeach Mayorkas

Posted on January 13, 2023 (Updated January 13, 2023) by Rebecca Beitsch

Tensions are rising in the GOP House over how to tackle a topic many back enthusiastically: impeaching Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Republicans are largely unified in opposition to the secretary, but while some want to go full bore right away, others see fast-track impeachment as a mistake, warning that it's important to build their case before the public.

“We made the argument that impeachment was rushed — the second impeachment — and I think that's not who we are as a party,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a former prosecutor, in reference to the second impeachment of former President Trump.

McCaul said it's the committees of jurisdiction that should be leading the inquiry.

“We need to have hearings on this and we need to gather evidence and facts and, look, do I think the guy has done a terrible job? Yes,“ McCaul said. “Do I think he's been derelict in his responsibilities? Yes. But we need to get all this together, and do it in a methodical way.”

In some corners, Republicans are lining up at the chance to impeach Mayorkas.

After Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) filed articles of impeachment against the secretary this week, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) quickly pledged his own resolution while suggesting he was the one who had actually taken the impeachment action first.

“I was the first Member of Congress to introduce impeachment articles against DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in 2021,” Biggs wrote on Twitter. “I will reintroduce these articles with even more justification very soon.”

Balancing the different interests will be another challenge for Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who has signaled he supports a deliberate approach.

“House Republicans will investigate every order, every action. And every failure will determine whether we can begin impeachment inquiry,” he said in November, during a trip to the border.

Twenty lawmakers have signed on to Fallon’s resolution. While he said he doesn't want to preclude any investigation, Fallon wants to prompt his colleagues to start them immediately.

“I think it's of vital import to get the ball rolling immediately. Because this is an emergency. This is break glass. This is something that we can't just sit around any longer and say, ‘Well, we'll do it in a month, we'll take it up in four months.’ Let's take it up right now,” he told The Hill.

Building a case for Mayorkas’s impeachment may not be as easy as some of his critics think.

For example, Fallon argues that Mayorkas lied to Congress in two different appearances, when saying both that the Biden administration has maintained operational control of the border and that the border is secure.

Both points are largely a matter of opinion; impeachment statutes are typically reserved for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

“Impeachment is a very serious topic, and it's one where the facts need to lead you to the results, not have a predetermined decision,” said Rep. Tony Gonzales (R), who represents the Texas district with the longest shared border with Mexico.

Homeland Security officials, so far, have not assigned staff to deal with potential impeachment inquiries.

Ultimately, Republicans who support impeachment and those who oppose it will have to make their case to McCarthy and his leadership team, who will weigh the costs and benefits of spending political capital on a historic measure with scant chances in the Senate.

Impeaching Mayorkas in the House would require a majority vote. In the Senate, a two-thirds majority would be necessary to win a conviction — a high bar.

Other Republicans who spoke with The Hill stressed the need to go through the proper oversight channels, rather than leap into impeachment.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), whose panel would be among those with jurisdiction over Mayorkas’s impeachment, was animated when he spoke about the opportunity to remove the DHS chief, pushing their own coming investigation.

“We're going to hold him accountable. That's what we're going to do. We're going to have hearings and dig into what I would say is dereliction of duty,” he said.

“All I can speak about is what we're going to do in the committee and that is a five-phased approach of tackling the fight.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said the GOP needed to handle the matter in “the appropriate way.”

“I've been very public about my belief that he has violated his oath, that he has undermined our ability to defend our country,” he said.

“But I'm on the House Judiciary Committee in the majority now and so I'm going to talk to [Chair] Jim [Jordan] (R-Ohio) and talk to people on that committee to make sure that we're going through this and looking at it in the appropriate way.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), who was initially by McCarthy’s side for the November border trip as he stressed an eventual inquiry, has signed onto Fallon’s resolution as a co-sponsor, saying he believes Cabinet secretaries can be impeached over their policies.

“People argue about this legally, you can impeach a president because you just don't like his policies. In theory that could be considered a high crime or misdemeanor according to the current legal analysis,” he said.

“I just decided I agree with Fallon. That's basically as simple as I can put it.”

Seven scenarios for McCarthy’s Speakership vote — ranked least to most likely

Posted on December 15, 2022 (Updated December 15, 2022) by Emily Brooks

All eyes are on House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as he negotiates a fragile path to the Speakership next year in the face of opposition from a handful of conservatives within his own conference.

The Republicans flipped control of the House in last month’s midterms, but their razor-thin majority has empowered the far-right firebrands who are vowing to block McCarthy’s Speakership bid — and are resisting all entreaties to alter course for the sake of party unity.

The entrenched opposition has raised the specter that McCarthy simply won’t have the support he needs to win the gavel when the House gathers on Jan. 3 to choose the next Speaker.

And it’s sparked a number of predictions — some of them more far-fetched than others — about how the day might evolve and who might emerge as the next Speaker if McCarthy falls short.

Here are seven scenarios being floated heading into the vote, ranked from least to most likely:

A Democrat squeaks in

It’s theoretically possible that discord within the GOP could lead to a Democratic Speaker.

Such a result is very, very unlikely because Republicans will have the majority in the vote and do not want this to happen.

But it is possible — if chaos on the floor prompted frustrated GOP moderates to back a centrist Democrat — that a member of the minority could be elected Speaker.

In fact, it’s one of the warnings that McCarthy and his allies have sounded in recent weeks as they seek to break the logjam of opposition and win him the gavel.

“If we don’t do this right, the Democrats can take the majority. If we play games on the floor, the Democrats can end up picking who the Speaker is,” McCarthy said in a November Newsmax interview after he won the House GOP nomination for Speaker 188 to 31 over Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.).

The warning, however, is more threat than prospect, as Republicans would never back a Democrat for Speaker after four years in the minority wilderness under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). And even McCarthy has seemed to acknowledge that implausibility, by shifting his argument elsewhere in the weeks since.

House elects a Speaker who is not a member of Congress

House rules do not technically require that the Speaker is a sitting, elected member of House — though every Speaker in U.S. history has been. That leaves open the possibility of members looking for a McCarthy alternative elsewhere.

When conservative House Republicans aimed to mount a challenge to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2014, they tried to re cruit Ben Carson, who later went on to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), a Pelosi detractor, made a habit of voting for former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a supporter of McCarthy, told The Hill last week that there is no other member of the House Republican Conference who can get the support needed to be Speaker. And Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a liberal who’s been open to supporting a moderate “unity” candidate as a last resort, has said it does “not necessarily” have to be a sitting member.

A moderate Republican wins with backing of some Republicans and Democrats

That is a top worry of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has emerged as one of the most vocal supporters of McCarthy for Speaker.

Greene, who got a seat at the table from McCarthy rather than being made an outcast in the GOP conference, has repeatedly warned that moderate Republicans could flip to work with Democrats and support someone who is not as conservative as McCarthy — and less accommodating.

But Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who has said he’s talked to Democratic members about the possibility of backing an alternative candidate, has said he will only consider such a drastic measure if McCarthy drops out of the race for Speaker after repeated failed votes.

Still, at least one Democrat, Khanna, has expressed openness to backing a Republican Speaker candidate who will take certain measures to open up the House process to give Democrats more power in the minority, like equal subpoena power on committees. It is unlikely that Republicans would agree to such a concession.

Other lawmakers are skeptical of the chances for a bipartisan consensus candidate, saying it would be political suicide, particularly for Republicans.

“Let’s just say 20 of them joined with us to nominate somebody like Don Bacon, or bring Fred Upton back, or whatever,” said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). “Those 20 will be not quite as bad as if they voted for [former President Trump’s] impeachment, but moving in that direction. I just think that they’ll get beat to death."

McCarthy drops out of Speakership race to make way for consensus pick

The first time McCarthy sought the Speaker’s gavel was in 2015, to replace the retiring Boehner. That effort ended before the process ever reached the floor.

Faced with conservative opposition, McCarthy stunned Washington by dropping out of the race at the last moment, leaving Republicans scrambling for a viable candidate, who ultimately emerged in the form of Rep. Paul Ryan (Wis.).

The difference this year is that there is no obvious figure who can easily win the support of both far-right conservatives who want to alter fundamentally how the House functions and the moderates ready to get on with the process of governing.

Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), McCarthy’s top deputy, has been floated as a possible alternative.

But there’s no indication the conservatives would support anyone who didn’t accept the same demands they’re making of McCarthy, including a controversial rule change making it easier to oust a sitting Speaker — a change that would empower the right wing even further.

While Biggs continues his protest challenge to McCarthy, he has teased that there are other Republicans who have privately expressed interest in being an alternative if it becomes clear McCarthy cannot win the gavel.

But Biggs and his allies won’t name names, fearing doing so would put a target on their back.

House agrees to make McCarthy Speaker with a plurality of votes

If the House Speakership election drags on for multiple votes with McCarthy in the lead but not securing enough votes for a majority, the House could agree to adopt a resolution to declare that a Speaker can be elected by a plurality rather than by a majority.

That would require cooperation from Democrats, and it is not clear whether they would support such a resolution.

But there is precedent for the House agreeing to elect a Speaker by plurality, as it has happened twice before in House history.

The first time was in 1849, after the House had been in session for 19 days and held 59 ballots for Speaker. It happened again in 1856, when the House had taken 129 Speaker votes without any candidate winning a majority.

With so much uncertainty, some lawmakers are already bracing for a long day on Jan. 3.

“I’m obviously observing it from the other side, but all the intel I get from my Republican friends is that: expect it to go late,” said Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). “And I plan to wear my comfortable suit.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (Fla.), a top “Never Kevin” Republican, floated that the Speaker election could take months — rivaling the longest-ever Speaker election in 1855, which took two months and 133 ballots.

“We may see the cherry blossoms before we have a Speaker,” Gaetz said, referring to the blooms that emerge in March or April in Washington, D.C.

McCarthy elected Speaker because of Democratic absences

A Speaker is elected by a majority of all of those present and voting, meaning that McCarthy does not necessarily need 218 votes to win the Speakership. If some members are absent or vote “present,” it lowers the threshold from 218.

Pelosi won the Speakership in 2021 with 216 votes due to vacancies and absences. And Boehner also won the Speakership with just 216 votes in 2015, when 25 members did not vote. Many Democrats were attending a funeral for the late New York Gov. Mario Cuomo (D) that day.

If the Speakership election drags on and Democrats tire of the repeated ballots, it is possible that Democratic members miss subsequent votes, which could lower the majority threshold just enough for McCarthy to squeak out a victory.

Illness, weather or other unforeseen circumstances could also affect member attendance on Jan. 3. And because Republicans are planning to eliminate the proxy voting installed by Democrats during the pandemic, lawmakers would not have the option of voting remotely for Speaker.

In the closely divided House, with 222 Republicans to 212 Democrats and one vacancy, McCarthy needs 218 votes if every member votes for a Speaker candidate.

McCarthy wins an outright majority of votes

Many Republicans supportive of McCarthy are optimistic that he will ultimately win a majority of votes without having to worry about Democrats.

These lawmakers see the opposition from hard-line GOP members as little more than political posturing as they aim for concession s on rules changes and tactics.

Some members think that McCarthy may even be able to strike a deal with his detractors and win on the first ballot. Others think that once the McCarthy detractors make their point with at least one failed ballot, they might switch votes to allow him the gavel.

Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) compared McCarthy’s situation to that of Pelosi after the 2018 election, when she started off with enough opponents to deny her the Speakership but made enough agreements to earn majority support from Democrats.

“It is not any different. Like, they have a month the jockey and people vote against Pelosi, and ultimately they all get to the point they need to get to. I'm confident we'll do the same,” Moore said. “If I'm blindsided and we're doing 700 rounds and we're here till July, you can come back to me and say, ‘You were wrong.’”

McCarthy said on Fox News on Wednesday that he will have the votes to become Speaker either on Jan. 3 or before then.

“It could be somebody else, but whoever the somebody else is, everyone has a similar problem [with conservatives],” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “Which makes me believe that ultimately he’ll probably pull it together.”

Republicans Call for Impeachment of Biden’s DHS Chief Over Border Invasion

Posted on December 14, 2022 by The Center Square

By Casey Harper (The Center Square)

A group of U.S. House Republicans on Tuesday called for the impeachment of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

The lawmakers, led by U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., made their remarks during a news conference outside the Capitol Building, calling for Mayorkas’ impeachment amid the soaring number of illegal immigrants crossing into the U.S.

“Every day he remains in office, America is less safe,” Biggs said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection have released a steady stream of figures showing that the number of illegal immigrants entering through the southern border has soared to record levels since President Joe Biden took office.

Those numbers are poised to get worse. Trump-era Title 42 protections that allowed feds to expel migrants more quickly because of COVID-19 concerns are set to expire later this month, and experts predict a surge of illegal immigrants are awaiting that expiration.

Some areas, like El Paso, are seeing thousands of migrants cross over each day.

Those larger numbers of migrants have also brought large quantities of fentanyl, a deadly drug that is trafficked in the U.S. via cartels. Fentanyl overdoses have soared in recent years as well.

Some in the Senate have echoed the criticism of Mayorkas.

“The southern border has been an issue for a long time,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. “Secretary Mayorkas only showed back up when the mainstream media caved and reported on the issue.”

Syndicated with permission from The Center Square.

The post Republicans Call for Impeachment of Biden’s DHS Chief Over Border Invasion appeared first on The Political Insider.

GOP rep says there are 20 firm ‘no’ votes against McCarthy as Speaker

Posted on November 29, 2022 (Updated November 29, 2022) by Jared Gans

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said 20 members of the House Republican Conference are "pretty hard no” votes against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) becoming Speaker next session.

Biggs said in an interview on the podcast "Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz" that those who plan to not vote for McCarthy are not all from the House Freedom Caucus, the most conservative group in the body.

Biggs, a former chair of the Freedom Caucus, ran against McCarthy to be the GOP’s nominee for the Speakership earlier this month. McCarthy won the vote, 188-31, with five representatives voting for neither man.

But McCarthy needs to win 218 votes on Jan. 3, the first day of the next session of Congress, to become Speaker, and Republicans are set to hold only a narrow majority, meaning he cannot afford to lose many votes.

All Democrats will likely support their party’s nominee, which will likely be Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). McCarthy warned in an interview with Newsmax on Monday that Democrats could pick the next Speaker if Republicans “play games” on the House floor.

At least five House Republicans, including Biggs, have publicly said or strongly indicated they will not vote for McCarthy on the floor.

McCarthy has received criticism from hard-line conservatives over various issues like not pushing for a budget that cuts spending and not committing to pursuing impeachment against certain Biden administration officials like Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

McCarthy called on Mayorkas to resign in remarks last week, saying if he does not, House Republicans will determine if they can begin an impeachment inquiry.

Biggs said the party leadership needs a change from the status quo. He said the issues with McCarthy have “galvanized” enough members to prevent him from winning the Speakership.

“The sooner that they realize that, then the sooner that we can resolve who will be the Speaker,” he said.

McCarthy: Democrats could pick Speaker if Republicans ‘play games’ on House floor

Posted on November 29, 2022 (Updated November 29, 2022) by Emily Brooks

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned his skeptics in the House Republican Conference against opposing him for Speaker on the House floor.

“We have to speak as one voice. We will only be successful if we work together, or we’ll lose individually. This is very fragile — that we are the only stopgap for this Biden administration,” McCarthy said on Newsmax Monday.

“And if we don’t do this right, the Democrats can take the majority. If we play games on the floor, the Democrats can end up picking who the Speaker is,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy completed the first step toward Speakership when he won the House GOP’s nomination for the position earlier this month against a long-shot challenge from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a former chair of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, in a 188 to 31 vote, with five others voting for neither of the two.

Cyber Monday deals from BestReviews:

But in order to secure the Speakership, he needs to win majority support on the House floor on the first day of the new Congress on Jan. 3. And with Republicans winning a narrower-than-anticipated majority of around 222 seats to around 213 for Democrats, McCarthy can only afford to lose a handful of Republican votes on the floor.

All Democrats are expected to vote for their party’s Speaker nominee, expected to be finalized as Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) this week. At least five House Republicans from the hard-line conservative wing have publicly said or strongly indicated that they will not vote for McCarthy on the floor, throwing his Speakership bid into dangerous territory.

Those members are Reps. Bob Good (Va.), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Matt Rosendale (Mont.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.) and Biggs.

Several others have expressed skepticism of McCarthy but have not said how they will vote on Jan. 3. Biggs said on the "Conservative Review" podcast on Monday that he thinks the number of “hard noes” on McCarthy is around 20 GOP members, which would sink McCarthy’s bid.

McCarthy’s warning about Democrats picking the Speaker echoes repeated warnings from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who has broken with her Freedom Caucus colleagues to strongly support McCarthy. A handful of moderates, she says, could join with Democrats to elect a more moderate Speaker.

McCarthy also alluded to other factions of the party and the possibility of moderates breaking away.

“You have to listen to everybody in the conference, because five people on any side can stop anything when you’re in the majority,” McCarthy said on Newsmax.

Those opposed to McCarthy cite various issues, such as his not committing to pass a budget that slashes spending, his resistance to Freedom Caucus rules change requests that would give more power to rank-and-file members and his unwillingness to commit to impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

McCarthy did last week call on Mayorkas to resign or face a House GOP investigation and potential impeachment inquiry.

Allies of McCarthy also point out that there is no viable GOP alternative to him for Speaker, though Biggs has said he expects a more consensus candidate to emerge before Jan. 3.

“I think at the end of the day, calmer heads will prevail. We’ll work together to find the best path forward,” McCarthy said.

Though a majority of the whole House is 218 members, it is possible for a Speaker to be elected with fewer than that number since a Speaker needs majority support from only those voting for a specific candidate by surname.

Absences, “present” votes and vacancies lower that threshold. Democratic Rep. Donald McEachin (Va.) died on Monday, and his seat is likely to be vacant on Jan. 3.

WHIP LIST: McCarthy searches for 218 GOP Speakership votes

Posted on November 25, 2022 (Updated November 25, 2022) by Emily Brooks

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.

Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals from BestReviews:

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.”