Category: House

Jittery Democrats worried about Biden debt ceiling concessions

Posted on (Updated by Aris Folley

Liberals are growing increasingly jittery about what concessions President Biden may make in debt ceiling negotiations with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

While the party has been largely unified behind the White House’s strategy in the talks, more Democrats are voicing worries about what could be on the chopping block in order to keep the nation from defaulting on its debt. 

“I'm concerned because the president has, every now and then, moved to the right, if you will, to acquiesce to a so-called independent voter, and the American people want us to be bold and to stand firm,” Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Tuesday. “And to make sure we're following through on our promises.”

His comments add to a growing chorus of Democrats who are showing uneasiness in recent days about where the bipartisan talks over the nation’s borrowing limit could be headed.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) leaves the House Chamber on Thursday, April 20, 2023 following the last votes of the week. (Greg Nash)

Biden spooked many in his base over the weekend when he appeared to open the door to stricter work requirements for certain federal assistance programs.

Pressed by reporters on whether he was open to the idea as part of bipartisan debt limit discussions, Biden acknowledged voting for “tougher aid programs that’s in the law now,” but said “for Medicaid, it's a different story.”

“And so I’m waiting to hear what their exact proposal is,” Biden added. 

The White House spent Monday seemingly trying to walk back the remarks. But his comments have left some Democrats worried about where GOP-backed proposals to beef up work requirements for other programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamps program, fit in ongoing negotiations. 

McCarthy on Tuesday said including work requirements in the debt ceiling bill was a "red line" for him, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called including them a "non-starter."

“I'm deeply concerned about it and we're just going to have to see. Hopefully, they're not going to get to that point,” Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) said of the talks when asked by reporters about whether changes to work requirements were a nonstarter.

“I remain very concerned about anything that hurts people that get a small amount of food assistance,” Stabenow, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, also said.

And Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) in a statement Tuesday echoed the concern.

“No one I’ve ever met wants to stay on SNAP for life. They need it to make ends meet. I sure didn’t come to Washington to take vital assistance away from working people at the same time big bank CEOs nearly crash the economy and get to jet off to Hawaii scot-free. I cannot in good conscience support a debt ceiling proposal that pushes people into poverty,” he said.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) arrives to the Capitol for a series of votes on Tuesday, May 2, 2023. (Annabelle Gordon)

Asked Tuesday about the criticism that Biden may be giving away too many concessions, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said negotiations have been “as we see it, very productive.”

“This is a president who has been around the block a few times. He knows how to make deals. He knows how this works. And there’s no one more experienced in knowing how to get this done,” she added.

For months, the White House refused to negotiate over raising the debt ceiling. And Democrats showed a united front behind the president in rejecting calls by House Republicans to come to the bargaining table.

But as Congress stares down a potentially chaotic two-week stretch until June 1 — the earliest the Treasury Department warns the country risks a federal default — both sides are feeling the pressure to quickly strike a deal. 

More coverage of the debt ceiling from The Hill:

Democrats have panned a Republican bill passed by the House last month that would raise the debt ceiling — but not without a host of partisan spending cuts, ranging from measures to roll back parts of Biden’s signature economic bill that passed last year, changes to work requirements and putting a stop to the administration’s popular student loan decisions.

However, since talks began between the White House and House GOP leadership last week, there has been more chatter on Capitol Hill around more areas of potential compromise outlined in the House Republican bill, including proposals aimed at limiting government funding hashed out by lawmakers as part of the annual appropriations process over the next decade.

The House-passed bill would cap discretionary funding at fiscal 2022 levels, limiting annual spending growth at one percent annually — a proposal that has drawn swift opposition from top Democrats who say the measure could mean steep cuts for domestic programs.

Yet, in recent days, reports have surfaced that negotiators are considering a two-year deal that would involve proposals aimed at limiting spending while also raising the debt limit – which could be a tough lift in the divided Congress.  

While Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) signaled openness to The Hill last week to yanking back already approved coronavirus funding that Republicans say is not yet obligated, the key moderate voiced caution about potential caps. 

“I mean, there are some I think there's some low hanging fruit that we can look at,” said Cuellar, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “But start going into budget caps or all that, as an appropriator, I’m going to look at that very, carefully.”

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) is seen during the first day of the 118th session of Congress on Tuesday, January 3, 2023. (Greg Nash)

After his meeting with Biden on Tuesday, McCarthy signaled both sides had a ways to go in talks before striking a deal, telling reporters: “If this was where we were in February, I’d be very optimistic.”

“So, the structure of how we negotiate has improved. So it now gives you a better opportunity, even though we only have a few days to get it done,” McCarthy said. 

But the stakes are high as more experts warn of the potentially catastrophic consequences a default could hold for the economy.

Secretary Janet Yellen said in a speech on Tuesday that Americans are already seeing the “impacts of brinksmanship,” noting the changes seen in the bonds market in recent weeks.

“Investors have become more reluctant to hold government debt that matures in early June,” Yellen said at Independent Community Bankers of America 2023 Capital Summit. “And the impasse has already increased the debt burden to American taxpayers – as the leaders of the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee said last week.”

But there are worries among Democrats that extend beyond the threat of a default.

“Republicans want to cut across the board programs for children, the elderly … the sick, the poor. Unacceptable. Period,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters. 

He also punted a question about his trust in the White House’s strategy amid talks, instead saying they'll "find out more" after Tuesday's meeting. 

Durham’s FBI-Trump report fuels House GOP ‘weaponization’ attacks

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

House Republicans say the long-awaited report from special counsel John Durham bolsters their arguments that federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been “weaponized” against political enemies — a theme that has been a major defining belief of their new majority. 

“The long-awaited Durham Report confirmed what the American people already know; that individuals at the highest levels of government attempted to overthrow democracy when they illegally weaponized the federal government against Donald J. Trump,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) said in a statement.

The report found that federal authorities did not have sufficient information to open their “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign’s ties to Russia. Durham did not recommend any charges to the FBI in his report but said that the agency was “seriously deficient” in how it handled some aspects of the investigation, including relying on “raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence.” 

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) quoted from the report in a press conference Tuesday, raising alarm about its assertion that “the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law” and that it identified an FBI agent who knowingly made misrepresentations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

“Where’s the accountability for this? Who’s going to be held accountable? These are the questions we’re going to continue to ask,” Scalise said.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) invited Durham to speak to his panel’s select subcommittee on government weaponization — created at the request of the right flank ahead of the tumultuous election of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — at the end of the month.

Many House GOP members, including those serving on the Intelligence and Judiciary committees, said that they had not yet read the more than 300-page report released Monday, when many were focused on the debt ceiling negotiations.

Yet several Republicans said that the report essentially confirmed their own biases.

“We all already believed or knew what was in there,” said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). “It's like, ‘Yeah, see? We told you so.’”

McCarthy told The Hill that Republicans already knew about the things that were “so appalling.”

“They took the entire country through this, impeachment, everything else, when we knew the FBI never should have done this from the very beginning,” McCarthy said.

Democrats, for their part, criticized the report for not offering enough new information.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that the report amounted to “a political rehashing of what the Justice Department Inspector General already made public in 2019.” 

“Mr. Durham has, one last time, over promised and under delivered,” Nadler said before referencing special counsel Robert Mueller, who released a report in 2019 on his investigation of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election.

“Nothing in this report changes the outcome of the Mueller investigation, which resulted in multiple convictions, found more than one hundred contacts between the 2016 Trump campaign and the Russian government, and substantial reason to believe that Donald Trump had committed obstruction of justice,” Nadler said.

The report from Durham is likely to affect how House Republicans legislate, and may also play a role in the GOP presidential primary.

“The report confirms that FBI personnel repeatedly disregarded critical protections established to protect the American people from unlawful surveillance,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. “Such actions should never have occurred, and it is essential that Congress codifies clear guardrails that prevent future FBI abuses and restores the public’s trust in our law enforcement institutions.”

The FBI is getting ahead of calls for change, releasing a five-page letter responding to Durham that details recent reforms.

“The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time,” the FBI said in a statement. “Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented. This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect.”

One area likely to be affected by the politics of the Durham report is Congress’s reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows for warrantless surveillance of foreigners outside the United States, even as they communicate with U.S. citizens within the U.S. — thus allowing intelligence agencies to pick up citizen communications without a warrant.

“I can assure you, 702 — that is not going to get rubber-stamped,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee. “We’ve got to have a serious reboot or elimination of what we're seeing through FISA 702.”

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, also said that the Durham report will probably affect FISA reauthorization.

In a Twitter thread, Crenshaw said there “must be consequences” based on the findings of the report.

“This report demonstrates how unelected, subversive actors within the highest levels of our government sought to destroy a duly-elected president they hated. They weaponized a lie – knowing the media would breathlessly regurgitate that lie – in order to take Donald Trump out of the White House,” Crenshaw said.

Marjorie Taylor Greene moves to impeach FBI director, US attorney for DC

Posted on (Updated by Jared Gans

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said on Tuesday that she will move to introduce articles of impeachment against FBI Director Christopher Wray and Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Greene alleged in a release that Wray has turned the FBI into President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland's "personal police force." She said the FBI has "intimidated, harassed, and entrapped" U.S. citizens who have been "deemed enemies of the Biden regime."

She cited several examples of FBI actions in the past few years during Wray's tenure that she believes demonstrates overreach and improper conduct by the agency.

Greene referenced the plot that multiple men had in 2020 to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), pointing to the couple who were acquitted after defense attorneys argued that the FBI entrapped them and convinced them to engage in the conspiracy.

Multiple other men, including the suspected ringleaders of the plot, were found guilty for their actions.

Greene also noted the search that the FBI conducted on former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents that were taken there. She argued that Trump did not break any laws with his actions, but Biden did not have any authority to possess the documents that were found in multiple locations, including his personal home.

"It is unacceptable for the Director of the FBI or any civil officer to exercise his power in a way that targets one political class while doing favors for the other," Greene said.

Her articles of impeachment accuse Wray of refusing to ensure that the laws Congress passes, and the president signs, are "faithfully executed" and has failed to uphold his oath.

During a hearing of the House Oversight Committee on crime in Washington, D.C., earlier on Tuesday, Greene said Graves had chosen not to prosecute 67 percent of people arrested by D.C. police officers but continues to pursue cases and sentences against Jan. 6 defendants. She said the decision to not prosecute the former is “absolutely criminal.” 

“The time for weaponizing the Department of Justice needs to come to an end. And because you refuse to prosecute real criminals that are violating all the crimes here in Washington, D.C., and you want to talk about D.C. residents — they are victims of your abuse of power,” she said. “And because of that, I am introducing articles of impeachment on you, Mr. Graves.” 

Graves has defended his office’s conduct, telling The Washington Post that he is prosecuting most violent felonies. He said less serious cases were not being pursued for various reasons, including body-camera footage from officers subjecting arrests to additional scrutiny. 

Greene mentioned an example of Matthew Perna, a Pennsylvania man who pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 and died by suicide last year while awaiting sentencing. Perna entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 and stayed inside for about 20 minutes, during which he took video of the crowd there. 

Perna’s family said he died from a “broken heart” and partially blamed the government prosecution for leading to his death. 

Greene said Perna “peacefully” entered the Capitol, did not assault anyone or damage any property and cooperated with the FBI. She said Graves issued a request to delay Perna’s sentencing to allow more time to request a longer sentence for him, despite him not hurting anyone. 

“And this is what you’ve done repeatedly, over and over, for those who pled or were convicted on Jan. 6,” she said. 

Greene has pushed back on the treatment of Jan. 6 defendants in the past two years. She has on multiple occasions called for the release of all security footage taken during the attack and alleged that the defendants awaiting trial were being “mistreated” following a March visit to the D.C. jail where they were being held.

Graves has overseen the prosecution of many of the defendants facing charges over their conduct during the riot.

Greene last summer filed articles of impeachment against Garland over the FBI's search of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago property for classified and sensitive documents.

-- Updated 5:49 p.m.

House GOP Whip Emmer calls for Mayorkas impeachment

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) called for the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, becoming the highest-ranking GOP leader to do so.

“This, to me, is the greatest malfeasance, and malfeasance is — it’s not a failure to act — it’s an intentional failure to act. Mayorkas should be impeached,” Emmer told Breitbart News in an interview on Friday. “I think we should be talking seriously about that regardless of what this feckless Senate might want to do.”

He is not the only GOP leader escalating their rhetoric against Mayorkas. In an interview with The Hill last week, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) stopped short of calling for impeachment, but he signaled that Republicans are preparing to take action against Mayorkas.

“You're seeing a lot of a lot of questions being raised about the competence of Secretary Mayorkas and there's been legislation filed and that's going through the committee process right now,” Scalise said. “The committee has also been doing work on looking into holding Secretary Mayorkas accountable, and that process is going to play out — and it's far from over.”

In a statement responding to Emmer’s support for impeachment, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson called on Congress to pass immigration reform legislation.

“Secretary Mayorkas is proud to advance the noble mission of this Department, support its extraordinary workforce, and serve the American people,” the DHS statement said. “The Department will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border, protect the nation from terrorism, improve our cybersecurity, all while building a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. Instead of pointing fingers and pursuing a baseless impeachment, Congress should work with the Department and pass legislation to fix our broken immigration system, which has not been updated in over 40 years.”

Emmer’s call to impeach Mayorkas comes just after House Republicans passed a border crackdown bill, and as Title 42, the pandemic-era policy that allowed for the rapid expulsion of migrants, expired.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has repeatedly said House Republicans will not impeach Biden administration officials for political purposes and will first conduct an investigation.

Multiple committees have been investigating Mayorkas’s management of the U.S.-Mexico border since the GOP took control of the House. 

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who would oversee impeachment proceedings, has repeatedly said the U.S. does not have “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border — referring to a legal argument that would likely form the basis of a House GOP impeachment push. Jordan has asserted that is intentional on the part of Mayorkas, also playing into a case for impeachment.

“I know that we’re going to have members — much like other constitutional disagreements we’ve had, there’s probably going to be a member who says … who’s a stickler about high crimes and misdemeanors,” Emmer told Breitbart News. “I believe if you look at the actual law and the precedent that’s been set — and forget about the phony impeachment stuff that the Democrats have been doing for political stunts — this one’s a real, real issue. You can see the pictures live every day. You have an administration and an idiot that’s in charge of the border.”

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Pat Fallon (R-Texas) have filed impeachment articles against Mayorkas, and 57 other House Republicans have cosponsored one of both of those resolutions.

Updated at 3:08 p.m.

Greene silencing leads to new pledges of civility

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

The silencing of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she called Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas a liar in a hearing has led to a pledge for a more civil House Homeland Security Committee going forward — a standard lawmakers may struggle to meet as they gear up for the secretary’s impeachment. 

When Mayorkas appeared before Congress this week, Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) accused him of intentional disruption at the border and said his answers to prior questions show “incompetence.” Rep. Clay Higgins told Mayorkas it was “shameful what you brought upon our country.” Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) accused him of being smug. 

Numerous lawmakers accused him of lying before Congress — an argument both Mayorkas and Democrats refute.

But while others accused Mayorkas of being dishonest, Greene on Wednesday explicitly labeled him a liar, something Green determined violated House rules on impugning someone’s character. 

A hearing that began with a fiery opening statement from Green ended with a call to “dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.” 

“We don’t have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don’t have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” he said in closing the hearing.

It was a commitment he made after a sidebar with ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who repeatedly described the panel's discourse that day as unbecoming for a committee with such a serious jurisdiction.  

Whether that moment can be met already appears in doubt for a committee that contains many members eager to impeach Mayorkas — a process that involves holding him personally responsible for the Biden administration’s approach to the border. 

Green was chastised early in the meeting by Democrats, who pointed to a story in The New York Times reporting he told donors to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of Wednesday’s hearing.

And Republicans on the panel have offered mixed assessments of whether they believe the tone of the hearing was inappropriate. 

Greene called the decision to silence her for the rest of the hearing unfair, noting that numerous Republican speakers before her accused Mayorkas of lying to Congress, even if they did not label him as a liar directly. 

“These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules. I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee,” she said.

Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) said calling someone a liar is “poor form,” but that doing so is justified in regards to Mayorkas.

“They have been provoked to engage with Secretary Mayorkas in very severe terms,” he said of some of his colleagues. “And there's a reason for it.”

Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), however, suggested the committee members take a softer approach in their language if not in their stance, pointing to specific passages from the Bible that guide him. 

“We can be unwavering without compromise, and also be gentle and reasonable. And so it hangs on my wall. It's hidden in my heart. And that's who I want to be as a legislator,” he said, pointing to James 3:17.

“I can disagree with someone and disagree with them heartily. And that's what makes our nation great is we have raucous debates, right? But I also want people to know that I love them and that the way I behold them in my subconscious is not through hatred, it is through love towards them as an individual who's made in the image of God.”

Mayorkas is no stranger to heated rhetoric. At one point last year during an appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, one lawmaker compared him to Benedict Arnold, suggesting he was a traitor to the country. And numerous senators this week likewise attacked his character, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) asking whether he had “an ounce of human compassion” about the situation at the border. 

At an event Friday, Mayorkas lamented the approach of lawmakers who criticize his character. 

“They are not easy to listen to,” he said of the insults. “They also have ramifications that I wish individuals in positions of leadership would consider.”

“I am fundamentally — fundamentally though — I’m impervious to them. Because I may make some mistakes. My decisions may be mistaken. Some may disagree with them, but I have 100 percent confidence in the integrity of my decision,” Mayorkas said in response to a question from The Hill during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Several Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to dismiss the budding impeachment argument from the GOP.

“They can disagree with him on policy, but that is not a high crime and misdemeanor, nor does it in any way violate the Constitution and has no grounds for impeachment,” Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) said.

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said while many colleagues offered similar remarks to Greene, her comments have received the most attention, undercutting the effort to focus on Mayorkas.

“I think most of the Republicans are saying the same thing. I think most Republicans were calling [the] secretary names, belittling him and not allowing him to speak, insinuating that he was lying — all things which are false,” Garcia told The Hill.

“Republicans are focused — and they were clear — even in the chairman's comments at the fundraiser that he had, that he expected today to be a circus, he expected today to be kind of a made-for-TV event, which is how they planned it. And I think it backfired on them,” he said Wednesday. 

Green has said he was misquoted in the Times article, though he did not specify how, and noted the impeachment process will ultimately fall to the House Judiciary Committee. 

The nearly 20-minute delay in challenging Greene’s comments was a source of embarrassment for some on the committee. Thompson warned the division on display is poor signaling to adversaries who keep tabs on internal dynamics in the U.S. 

“Our charge as a committee is to keep the homeland safe from foreign as well as domestic terrorists,” he said.

“And if they see a committee tasked with that responsibility acting like we did today, you're saying, ‘Well, look, we don't have to worry anymore since it’s going off the rails.’”

Green told The Hill that going forward committee members need to “just attack the problem. You don’t attack the person.”

But he sees the issue as one on both sides of the aisle, adding that “There better not be any of either side breaking the rules of decorum,” in a nod to a sign brought by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) criticizing Greene’s effort to defund the FBI. 

Greene made a similar argument, saying Thompson chaired a committee that impugned her character.

“Bennie Thompson has used his position, especially his chairmanship on the Jan. 6 committee, to literally call Republicans names every single day impugning our character, me specifically,” she said, adding that Democrats have called her an insurrectionist.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said he appreciated the efforts at the end of the hearing to “rein it back in,” but said whether Green can ultimately do so remains to be seen.

“It varies from different Republican members. I think for some of them, this is the raison d'etre. They're going for more quotes, more tweets, more sales, more dollars raised on the internet. They're not going to change,” he said.

“The chairman and some of the other members, I hope that they will step back from that precipice and we can actually get back to doing some reasonable work.”

Greene vs Green: silencing sparks round of GOP infighting

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) this week again presented a challenge to GOP leadership after she was silenced Wednesday following an exchange with Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas whom she accused of being a liar.

Greene’s comments pushed Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee to move to take down her words, a ruling that blocks a lawmaker from being recognized to speak during a hearing. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) agreed the speech violated House rules by attacking someone’s character, appearing not to immediately realize a move to “take down” her comments versus striking them from the record would terminate her right to speak again. 

Greene on Thursday called the decision unfair, particularly because a series of Republican lawmakers had spent their time accusing Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress. It’s a claim Democrats have dismissed as a weak argument the GOP is exploring ahead of a possible impeachment of the secretary.

“I think it's not fair. Especially our Chair, Mark Green, and others, were also accusing Secretary Mayorkas of lying, calling him a liar. Congressman Green also called him incompetent. These are all impugning his character also, which is what they claimed were the rules,” she said in response to a question from The Hill. 

“I think silencing me was extremely unfair. And I think it showed weakness from Republicans on the committee.”

Two separate comments from Greene on Wednesday brought proceedings to a roughly 20-minute halt. 

She first accused Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) of cheating on his wife with a Chinese spy — a charge the California lawmaker vehemently denied and a comment Democrats also challenged, which Republicans on the panel shot down in a party-line vote.

Minutes later, she called Mayorkas a liar while accusing the secretary of failing to work to stem the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.

“You’re a liar. You are letting this go on, and the numbers prove it,” she said.

Green, speaking with The Hill on Wednesday after the hearing, said while other members made similar comments about Mayorkas, they were more carefully tailored.

“Well, you just attack the problem. You don't attack the person. Note that I said Mayorkas lied to Congress. I didn't say Mayorkas was a liar. No one objected to me saying, ‘You gave false testimony.’ Or, ‘You lied,’ but they would object if I said, ‘You're a liar.’ Because that's attacking the person as opposed to what he did or said. So that's the subtle difference,” he said.

The chair ended Wednesday’s hearing with a call for greater civility, saying, “We do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”

On Thursday morning, the Georgia lawmaker said she planned to speak to Green on the floor — a conversation she later said changed little.

“He basically said that we have two different styles. And so we have a disagreement still about what took place yesterday. But you know, I'm still new to committees,” Greene said, nodding to her last session in Congress where she was removed from her posts. 

“So I'll make sure that I'm making sure I'm following the rules, which I do believe is important, but at the same time, I'm still going to keep pushing.”

According to reporting from CNN, sources close to Green said he privately reprimanded Greene and would contemplate asking Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to remove her from the panel if something similar happened again.

But Greene dismissed that possibility, noting that she had spoken with McCarthy. 

“Speaker McCarthy's never going to let that happen,” she said, adding that “he agreed with me.” 

Reached for comment Thursday, a spokeswoman for the committee said, “Chairman Green looks forward to Congresswoman Greene’s full participation in the plethora of upcoming committee activities to get answers for the American people on the Mayorkas border crisis.”

McCarthy’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democrats on Thursday cast the episode as another example of Republicans elevating the Trump-aligned MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing of the party.

"The extreme MAGA Republicans are showing the American people who they are. They're not even trying to hide their extremism. And Exhibit A is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is totally out of control. But they don't care. The leadership apparently supports Marjorie Taylor Greene,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said at a press conference.

“The rank-and-file Republicans apparently support Marjorie Taylor Greene. She's allowed to lie. She's allowed to debase the institution.”

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as a staffer to Democrats during former President Trump’s first impeachment, said Republicans have done little to demonstrate that Mayorkas lied under oath — the underlying charge of their questions.

GOP lawmakers have for months asked Mayorkas whether he has operational control of the border, looking for any inconsistencies in his statements. They point to a 2006 law that defines operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries, a standard of perfection that has never been met.

“They seem to be trying to create some sort of record of him making false statements under oath, but their own statements undermine those accusations, and there's no basis for them to proceed with impeachment,” he told The Hill Wednesday.

“I frankly was very disappointed with the tenor of the entire hearing. And the ad hominem insults and attacks on the secretary is just a shameful demonstration of a lack of respect for a cabinet official.”

Heated GOP grilling of Mayorkas leads to pledge to ‘dial the rhetoric down’

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Republicans gave a preview Wednesday of a still materializing impeachment case against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, zeroing in on a 2006 law that requires a standard of perfection at the border.

But what started as a fiery hearing filled with attacks on Mayorkas ended with promises to tone down the rhetoric and move towards civility in the House Homeland Security Committee — a panel with numerous members who have pledged to remove the secretary from office.

The GOP on Wednesday repeatedly referenced the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that defines operational control as achieved when there is not a single unlawful entry of either migrants or drugs at the border. 

Chair Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and other Republicans played numerous clips of Mayorkas previously answering questions about whether he has maintained operational control of the border — a tactic that comes after Green reportedly told donors at a fundraiser to “get the popcorn” ready ahead of the hearing.

Green rattled off a series of policies rolled out under the Biden administration, including the rescission of some Trump-era policies, though the current administration has alienated immigration advocates by retaining others. 

“You have not secured our borders, Mr. Secretary, and I believe you've done so intentionally. There is no other explanation for the systematic dismantling and transformation of our border,” he said. 

Several Republicans on the committee, including Green, leveled a series of accusations against Mayorkas, using their full five minutes for speeches, without asking questions of Mayorkas or allowing him to respond.

“I have no interest in asking the secretary any questions because he obfuscates and lies,” said  Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) after arguing Mayorkas had “failed your country.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the committee, defended Mayorkas, pointing to reporting from The New York Times about Green’s comments to donors.

“I was dismayed to see that speaking to a group of campaign contributors last week about today's hearing the Chairman said, and I quote, ‘Get the popcorn. It's going to be fun.’ I think that tells Americans all they need to know about the Republican agenda here,” Thompson said.

“They don't want solutions to homeland security challenges. They want to make a headline or photo opp. They want a political wedge issue and something to talk to their deep-pocketed donors about more than they want to work together to get things done.”

Green later said the article misquoted him. He did not specify how but detailed he has no power to impeach Mayorkas, noting such a move would fall to the House Judiciary Committee and that his role is limited to oversight.

Republicans used much of the hearing to dissect Mayorkas’s previous statements on operational control of the border.

Mayorkas has repeatedly maintained he has control of the border, but the GOP has seized on prior comments from Border Patrol Chief Raúl Ortiz who answered “no” when asked if the department was meeting the high standard set under the Secure Fence Act.

It was a line Green said “told the truth” about the situation at the border.

Mayorkas on Wednesday said he was previously cut off by lawmakers from giving nuance to earlier answers, arguing the law leaves much discretion to the secretary in determining how to manage the border while the standard itself has never been met.

“The Secure Fence Act provides that operational control means that not a single individual crosses the border illegally. And it's for that reason that prior secretaries and myself have said that under that definition, no administration has had operational control,” Mayorkas said.

“As I have testified under oath multiple times, we use a lens of reasonableness in defining operational control. Are we maximizing the resources that we have to deliver the most effective results? And under that definition, we are doing so very much to gain operational control.”

Democrats took turns defending Mayorkas.

Rep. Donald Payne (D-N.J.) accused Republicans of having “such short memories … with respect to the situation at the Southern border.” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) rattled off a list of Trump-era policies, including family separation, prompting Mayorkas to say they not only failed to achieve operational control but “disobeyed our values as a country.”

Thompson turned to the archives, citing comments from GOP lawmakers from when the Secure Fence Act was first passed, citing concerns over the standard it set, including Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), a member of the committee who worked on the legislation.

“When you put this number as a metric in the definition of operational control, you make it impossible to achieve operational control. Perfection shouldn't be the enemy of the good,” McCaul said at the time, according to a portion of the transcript read aloud by Thompson.

Republicans, however, took issue with Mayorakas’s explanation, arguing the secretary has no right to interpret the laws passed by Congress.

“Congress set an objective in law. You haven't pursued it,” said Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).  “Who are you to displace the legal definition of operational control by this Congress in favor of pursuing one of your own invention?”

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who played a central role in the impeachment of then-President Trump, later pounced on Bishop’s phrasing.

“I have a little experience with impeachment and I can tell you, as well as everybody else, that there is no grounds for impeachment based on a policy dispute. And there is absolutely nothing that I've seen here today that amounts to a false statement under oath,” he said.

“In fact, Mr. Bishop, my colleague, in referencing operational control and that standard, stated himself that it is an objective. It is the objective of the Department of Homeland Security to have operational control and, as you pointed out, that is to allow no unlawful entry into this country. That, of course, is an impossible standard.”

Other Republicans sought to hold Mayorkas accountable with other methods.

One lawmaker brought a series of charts with multiple questions. Two others brought guests to the hearing, including parents of children that had died of a fentanyl overdose and the family of victims who died after a man carrying migrants crashed into their car while seeking to evade police in a high-speed chase. 

The committee’s proceedings came to an almost 20-minute standstill following comments from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) accusing Mayorkas of lying.

Green agreed to a motion from Democrats to take down her words, ultimately resulting in the loss of her speaking privileges during the hearing.

It was a complex turn of events given that many Republicans at prior points in the hearing accused Mayorkas of being dishonest before Congress, though none, as Greene did, labeled him a liar.

Still, the hearing ended on a tone much different from how it started, with Thompson and Green both speaking to the need to maintain decorum during proceedings.

Thompson said the two men had "sidebarred" about the language used, noting other nations keep tabs on Congressional proceedings — “our adversaries look at us,” he warned.

“You and I pledge that going forward, we'll make every effort to get back to the civility that this committee has been known for,” Thompson said.

Green echoed that in his own closing remarks.

“I agree with the former chairman, now ranking member, that we disagree on a lot of policies. We really do. And we don't have to despise someone because they disagree with us. We don't have to disparage someone because they disagree with us,” Green said. 

“And we do need to dial the rhetoric down in the country and apparently in the committee.”

Cori Bush joins fellow Squad members in calling for Clarence Thomas impeachment

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) is calling for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to be impeached, joining other members of the progressive “Squad” who have called for the conservative justice to be reprimanded following a bombshell report on his relationship with a Republican donor.

In a statement on Tuesday, Bush said Thomas “holds a complete disregard for law and ethics that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in federal judges.”

“For these reasons, and because the federal judiciary has failed to hold Justice Thomas accountable, I am calling for impeachment proceedings to begin regarding Justice Thomas’s apparent violations of federal law,” she said.

ProPublica reported earlier this month that Thomas, who has served on the bench since 1991, went on luxury vacations with Republican donor and real estate developer Harlan Crow. The donor paid for the trips, which have been happening for more than two decades, according to ProPublica.

Supreme Court justices are required by federal law to file annual financial disclosures that include gifts, unless they fall under certain exemptions. In a statement following the report, Thomas said that he “was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

Days later, ProPublica reported that Thomas did not disclose a 2014 real estate deal he did with Crow. The donor reportedly purchased a series of properties in Savannah, Ga., from Thomas, his mother and his late brother’s family for $133,363. On Monday, CNN reported that Thomas plans to amend his financial disclosure forms to disclose the real estate deal.

And The Washington Post reported that Thomas has reported that his family received rental income from a real estate firm launched by his wife and her family that has not existed since 2006.

The revelations regarding Thomas have angered judicial watchdog groups and congressional Democrats, leading some to call for the justice’s impeachment, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and now Bush.

Bush in her statement on Tuesday said Thomas “has made a mockery of his ethical obligations and disgraced himself and the entire judiciary,” and said recent discoveries “are just the latest in a pattern of lawless and shocking behavior that has characterized Justice Thomas’s career.” 

Ocasio-Cortez, who was among the first House Democrats to call for Thomas’s impeachment amid the recent revelations, acknowledged in an interview with CNN that it is “very difficult” to see a path where Thomas is impeached by a House controlled by Republicans.

But Bush, nonetheless, wants the chamber to plow forward with impeachment. And if that does not work, she called on the Judicial Conference of the United States to refer Thomas to the attorney general.

“History will judge how Congress responded during this crisis in our federal judiciary. House Republicans must move forward with impeachment proceedings,” she said. “But if they continue choosing not to act, the Judicial Conference of the United States must immediately exercise its authority and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for further action.”

In addition to impeachment, Bush on Tuesday called on Congress to approve Supreme Court ethics reform, to expand the court, institute term limits “and take other actions to rein in this unaccountable, anti-democratic, and dangerous institution.”

“Holding judges accountable for their behavior is a matter of life-or-death for our communities. They wield enormous power, and the current hands-off approach to the judiciary has only emboldened lawless, corrupt, far-right judges to strip away our rights and make our lives worse off,” she added.

Pelosi seeks balance in post-Speakership role

Posted on (Updated by Mike Lillis

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is seeking a delicate balance in the new Congress where she’s ceded her official leadership duties but still exerts outsized influence within a caucus she piloted for 20 years.

The unusual dynamics — Pelosi is the first Speaker in almost two decades to remain in Congress after stepping out of power — have left the newly designated “Speaker Emerita” with the fragile task of navigating a new role in which she hopes to remain a potent voice for her district and her party without stepping on the toes of the Democrats’ new leadership team.

That’s no easy feat for an historic figure who maintains a national profile, is still shadowed by a security detail and retains a degree of authority unique in the House chamber. 

Yet as lawmakers hit the 100-day mark of the new Congress, Democrats of all stripes said that, so far, she’s pulling it off.

“It is a difficult balancing act, but I think she’s managed it superbly,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), another West Coast liberal who has served with Pelosi for almost three decades. “She's been respectful to the new Democratic leadership — clearly being helpful, but not stepping on them, their message, or getting in their way. It's just been artful.”

It also appears to be by design.

In stepping out of the leadership ranks after Democrats lost control of the House last November, Pelosi said she would focus more of her energies on delivering for her San Francisco district. She also suggested she would take pains not to encroach on Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and the new, younger crop of Democrats who accompanied him into the top leadership spots vacated by Pelosi and her two longtime deputies, Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md.) and James Clyburn (S.C.).

“I have no intention of being the mother-in-law in the kitchen saying, ‘My son doesn’t like the stuffing that way,’” Pelosi told reporters shortly after announcing her plans to step down. 

“They will have their vision; they will have their plan.”

Pelosi this week amplified that message, praising the new leadership team for doing "a terrific job" while expressing appreciation for the many opportunities she continues to enjoy as honorary Speaker.

"I’ve been overwhelmed by generous invitations to speak across the country and around the world," Pelosi said Thursday in an email. "Yet there is no greater honor for me than to speak for the people of San Francisco in the United States Congress.”

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) said the former Speaker is making good on her promises.

“I see no evidence that there is any tension whatsoever,” Higgins said. “The Speaker has stayed in the background — literally and figuratively. And that is what she said she was going to do in deference to a new leadership team, and I think all evidence indicates that's exactly what she has done."

Yet while Pelosi has kept a much lower profile in her new role, she’s hardly faded into the furniture. Jeffries, for one, said he speaks with Pelosi frequently as he gains his footing as the new head of the party. 

“It's been wonderful for me to be able to consistently talk to Speaker Pelosi, lean on her for her advice, her thoughts, her guidance, her suggestions, her experience as the greatest Speaker of all time,” Jeffries said earlier in the year. “The factual and historical record, in my view, makes that indisputable.” 

Other Democrats delivered a similar message, saying Pelosi‘s transition out of leadership has made her more accessible to rank-and-file members seeking her counsel. 

“People come up to her on the floor. They're interested, they're concerned, they have questions,” Blumenauer said. “And she's a tremendous resource.”

Not everyone in the House, of course, is thrilled to have Pelosi hanging around. Republicans, for decades, have accused her of advancing “socialist” policies they deem destructive to American innovation and free markets. And those attacks haven’t let up since Pelosi has stepped out of the leadership spotlight. 

“Nancy Pelosi, honestly, should either be removed from Congress — she needs to retire on her own [or] she needs to be kicked out,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told The Hill this week by phone. “That is my personal feelings about her policies; they're that disruptive.”

Still, even a conservative firebrand like Greene — who was booted from her committees in the last Congress with Pelosi’s blessing — said Pelosi’s knack for wielding power is deserving of acclaim.

“Nancy Pelosi is someone I greatly respect for the career that she was able to build and the power that she was able to gain and wield, and she did it well,” Greene said. “She passed the Democrat agenda … She got the job done.”

However long she remains in Congress, Pelosi’s place in history is secure. She was elected House Democratic leader in 2003, and rose again four years later to become the country’s first female Speaker. After eight years in the minority wilderness, she took the gavel again in 2019, stepping down from leadership only this year after Republicans seized control of the House. 

Over those years, she helped to enact some of the most consequential legislation of the last half-century, including ObamaCare, Wall Street reforms and a massive climate bill. And she orchestrated the impeachment of former President Trump, not once but twice.  

That legislative track record is another reason Democrats say they’re happy to have Pelosi remain a part of the team. 

“There is a lot she knows about negotiation and getting things done,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

The practical changes in Pelosi’s daily routine are subtle but real. 

Pelosi’s office releases far fewer statements on daily news items than she did when she was party leader, but when they do arrive they still tend to churn headlines — a testament to the weight she still holds.

Her praise of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) meeting with Taiwan’s president drew widespread coverage; her two-sentence statement on Trump’s recent indictment turned heads; and her endorsement of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) for Senate over two of her House colleagues was noted widely.

Most recently, Pelosi’s defense of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) amid calls for her resignation carried significant weight, especially after two House Democrats said the Senate stalwart should step down as she remains sidelined from Washington while battling shingles.

Inevitably, Pelosi’s schedule has also seen a change this year.  

As Democratic leader, she was famous for keeping an excruciating pace — in the Capitol, on fundraising trips around the country and research excursions abroad — and sleeping very little. (She once claimed to sleep four hours a night as Speaker, and five-and-a-half as minority leader.)

Stepping out of leadership has given Pelosi a new luxury — time — which has allowed her to spend more hours at home with her husband, Paul Pelosi, as he recovers from a violent attack at the couple’s San Francisco home just before the midterms. 

“She has time to herself,” Blumenauer said. “I've watched her for 25 years be in constant motion, juggling this, reaching out there, dealing with votes and paper and strategy and incoming crises. And this is a chance for her to exhale, to do what she does best in terms of being a thoughtful member of Congress. And I think she's delighting in it. 

“I think it's going to add years to her life.”

This is part of a series from The Hill on the House GOP’s first 100 days in power. Check out more coverage on TheHill.com.

Goldman slams Jim Jordan over planned NYC hearing: ‘not welcome in my district’

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) slammed Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) over the House Judiciary Committee’s planned hearing in New York City next week, telling the GOP chairman he is “not welcome” in Goldman's district, where the event is taking place.

“Instead of focusing on improving the lives of the American people, Jim Jordan has decided to come to my district at the behest of Donald Trump to continue to weaponize Congress to obstruct an ongoing, non-federal criminal prosecution,” Goldman said in a statement. “If Jordan truly cared about public safety, he’d be having a field hearing in Nashville, Tennessee or Louisville, Kentucky, where the most recent of the daily mass shootings have killed more innocent Americans.”

Three children and three adults were killed in a shooting at a Nashville school late last month, and at least four people were fatally shot at a bank in Louisville on Monday.

“Chairman Jordan is not welcome in my district for this political stunt that is simply a further waste of taxpayer money to support Donald Trump’s legal defense,” Goldman added.

Goldman represents New York’s 10th Congressional District, which includes the Javits Federal Building — the location of the Judiciary Committee’s planned hearing.

The Republican-led panel announced earlier on Monday that it will hold a hearing in Manhattan on April 17 focused on crime in the city. The event is titled “Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan.”

In the hearing advisory, House Judiciary Committee Republicans — led by Jordan — zeroed in on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D), who has been the target of GOP ire after a grand jury he empaneled indicted former President Trump. Last week, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts for his alleged involvement in orchestrating hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Republicans have accused Bragg of being soft on crime while conducting a politically-motivated prosecution of the former president. Bragg, however, has said his office is enforcing the law.

Next week’s hearing, according to the committee, “will examine how Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s pro-crime, anti-victim policies have led to an increase in violent crime and a dangerous community for New York City residents.”

Goldman served as lead counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, after which he became a frequent guest on cable news to discuss the legal proceedings surrounding Trump. He also served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York.

The Hill reached out to Jordan for comment.