Category: House

Finger-pointing flies from lawmakers over Ohio train derailment and spill

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Lawmakers are doling out blame and demanding answers on the train derailment in Ohio.

Legislators from both parties are expressing frustration and asking for more to be done, though Republicans in particular have put Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg directly in the hot seat. 

“Secretary Buttigieg is nowhere to be found on this issue. It really is a remarkable thing that he hasn't gone to East Palestine to see what happened there,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said on Fox Business this week. “He hasn't come to Congress to explain what happened. For whatever reason, the Secretary seems to fill his days with politics. I know he has aspirations, but he actually has a day job.”

Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) floated impeaching Buttigieg over how he has handled the derailment.

"I hope he does resign, and if he doesn't, there's a long list of impeachment criteria,” Davidson told conservative outlet Real America’s Voice Thursday. “I never would have thought we'd see a point where we need to impeach a Secretary of Transportation, but daggon, how many failures have to happen on his watch before we call it?"

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week that the White House has “absolute confidence” in Buttigieg.

The derailment of a Norfolk Southern train in East Palestine, Ohio, on Feb. 3 released chemicals, including toxic vinyl chloride, into the surrounding community, prompting a temporary evacuation. 

State and federal authorities have said that the area’s air and water are now safe, but residents remain fearful and concerned. 

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are questioning Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) about why it isn’t providing emergency assistance. 

Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who represents East Palestine, led a letter signed by the entire Ohio congressional delegation urging FEMA to provide assistance.

Johnson also told The Hill in a written statement that there may be room for congressional or administrative action once investigations on the issue are complete. 

 “Congress and the administration must take a close look at the findings to determine what policies to modify and/or implement to better prevent anything like this from happening again,” he said. 

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has called on Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) to declare an emergency, though DeWine’s office has said that it was told by FEMA that it was not eligible for assistance. 

A FEMA official told reporters Friday that the agency “continues to have ongoing conversations with the governor’s office” on the state’s support needs. Administration officials also emphasized a commitment from Norfolk Southern to pay for cleanup and other costs.

Beyond the issue of FEMA, Republicans have sent mixed messages on water quality.

The state has said testing indicated that municipal water in East Palestine is safe, but DeWine has also told residents to drink bottled water out of an “abundance of caution.”

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) has also said that he would drink bottled water; He posted a video on Thursday showing what appeared to be chemicals in a creek, saying there were “dead worms and dead fish all throughout this water.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials, traveled to East Palestine and posted a video of himself drinking water that he said came from its taps — saying that he was helping the mayor of East Palestine get the word out that the tap water is safe to drink. 

“What's clear is there is a lot of work to do. I thank the first responders and personnel on site for all their efforts thus far. I will work in a bipartisan effort to ensure our freight rail system is as safe as possible and prevent tragedies like this from occurring again,” Nehls said in a statement.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), too, has criticized the administration’s timeliness. 

“It is unacceptable that it took nearly two weeks for a senior Administration official to show up,” he said in a statement on EPA Administrator Michael Regan’s visit to the area. 

DeWine, for this part, called on Congress to take action if it is true that the railroad was not required to notify the state about the chemicals on the train because they were not considered high hazardous materials, Fox 19 reported.

Vance supported the call for labeling the materials as hazardous, though he said that the responsibility lies not only with Congress but also with the Transportation Department. 

“I don’t want to let Congress off the hook here because Congress can legislate a solution to this problem and that’s exactly what I'm going to try to do. We should have some legislation coming out here to that effect in the next few days, but look, the Department of Transportation can act on this issue too. This is a regulatory problem and a legal problem,” he told reporters this past week. 

House Republicans turn southern border into second campus

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Republicans are turning the U.S.-Mexico border into something of an extension campus for the House of Representatives.

A two-week recess kicked off a flurry of hearings and visits to the border by multiple GOP-led House committees, with more in the works.

Republicans are looking to place blame on the Biden administration for drug trafficking, national security and the humanitarian crisis as migrant encounters at the southern border remain near record highs.

And they think being on location will help build up public disapproval of Democratic policies.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Thursday visited the border in Cochise County, Ariz., with four freshman House Republicans who flipped Democratic-held seats in 2022: Reps. Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Jen Kiggans (Va.), and Derrick Van Orden (Wis.).

Speaking from the property of a rancher with the border fence in the background — the location found by GPS coordinates rather than an address —  McCarthy said the GOP activity at the border is aimed at forcing Democrats to pay attention.

“The new majority in Congress, we're gonna fight to fix this problem. No longer will the Democrats be able to ignore the issue and act like it's not happening,” McCarthy said. “We will have hearings on the border. It’s the responsibility of all members to attend. Those who come to testify will come from both sides of the aisle.”

The House Energy and Commerce Committee investigations and health subcommittees held a joint field hearing in McAllen, Texas, on Wednesday, arguing President Biden’s border policies have contributed to a public health crisis with fentanyl deaths.

Next Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing near the border in Yuma, Ariz. 

Members of the House Homeland Security Committee will go to El Paso, Texas, next week as part of a “border boot camp,” with a focus on educating freshman members on daily operations of Customs and Border Protection and the Texas Department of Public Safety, according to a committee source. It plans to hold a hearing at the border in March.

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the new chair of the Homeland Security Committee, wants to hire full-time staff members based on the U.S.-Mexico border. After being selected as chair last month, he told reporters that those staffers will be “sending us real time updates” on issues at the border.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee, which held a hearing in Washington about the border earlier this month, also plans to travel south for oversight activity in the future.

Border hawks are pleased to see Republicans there in person.

“It's really common sense. It's what leaders do. They go to the heart of the crisis, whether it's a hurricane or tornado, a terrorist attack, it doesn't matter,” Mark Morgan, the former chief operating officer and acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the Trump administration, told The Hill. “When you physically see it up close and personal, it changes your understanding. It changes your perspective.”

Morgan, who is now a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, talked about the emotional impact of seeing in person Border Patrol agents interact with migrants. And he criticized White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for commenting last year that “it’s not like somebody walks over” the border.

“That is exactly what they do all day long,” Morgan said. "Had she spent 30 seconds at the border — 30 seconds — she would have seen … It would have changed her understanding; it would have changed her perception.”

But Democrats see the activities as little more than publicity stunts.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whose district encompasses parts of Cochise County, paid his own visit to the border Thursday and criticized the tenor of Republicans' focus on the border.

"I don't see this thing as serious, what McCarthy's doing, parachuting in, doing the photo-op, hanging out with the one rancher and Sheriff [Dannels], taking their word as Bible and moving on,” Grijalva told The Hill on Thursday.

Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is a favorite witness on border issues for the GOP and a frequent guest on Fox News, but he has been accused by Democrats and immigration advocates of espousing an anti-immigrant agenda.

"I would have gone to the cities and the communities that are on the border. I would have him go and sit down with the people in Douglas, sit down with the people in Nogales, sit down with the people in San Luis and Somerton, sit down with the people in Naco, sit down with the people in Sasabe, sit down with the people that do business on that border, sit down with the families that have been there multi-generationally, sit down with them and talk about their needs and their perception of the border," Grijalva said. 

A White House spokesman on Wednesday dismissed McCarthy’s trip, saying “House Republicans should spend less time on partisan publicity stunts and more time working on solutions.”

And House Judiciary Committee Democrats will not attend next week’s hearing in Yuma.

Ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement subcommittee ranking member Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a joint statement Thursday that there was “no consultation” with Democrats on the hearing, and that many Democratic members had already committed to other congressional delegation trips.

They called it “a brazen act of political grandstanding,” adding, “as a result, Democrats, who have been to the border regularly the last few years, will not attend next week’s performative hearing. Additionally, Judiciary Democrats will conduct their own trip to the border next month where we will hear from the community and government officials on the ground."

The House Judiciary GOP said in a tweet that was “FAKE NEWS,” and Republicans had been in consultation with Democrats for weeks about the trip — sharing a video of comments from Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) in the committee’s first meeting to make the minority aware of a planned trip to the border that week.

"They're just scared to face the harsh realities of the #BidenBorderCrisis,” the committee tweeted.

Also looming over the in-person border activities is the potential impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Those calling for his impeachment argue that he has not achieved “operational control.”

McCarthy has not committed to impeaching Mayorkas, saying that impeachment will not be “political.” But in November, he called on Mayorkas to resign or face House GOP investigations — warning that it could lead to impeachment. 

But even as they try to draw attention to the border and take aim at Democrats, Republicans face internal disagreement over legislation to address immigration issues. GOP leaders had planned to quickly bring to the House floor a bill that would allow the Homeland Security secretary to turn away migrants in order to achieve “operational control” at the border. 

Objections from moderates like Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) over the legislation being “anti-immigrant” derailed that plan. 

Republicans are now working on border and immigration legislation that will go through a normal committee process.

“We've got a lot of ideas inside Congress. It’s different than the Congress before,” McCarthy said at the border Thursday. “We're just not going to write the bill and put it onto the floor. We're going to listen to the people that are on the border. We're going to listen to border agents. We want the very best ideas.”

Rafael Bernal contributed.

McCarthy tells Mayorkas to ‘stop lying’ about border

Posted on (Updated by Emily Brooks

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) took aim at Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas during a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday, fueling an argument that could help lay the groundwork for a potential impeachment.

“This has got to stop. And it starts with the Secretary of Homeland. Stop lying to the American public. Tell them the truth what's happening, and change back the regulation that we had before so our border can be secure,” McCarthy said in a press conference from Cochise County, Ariz., with the border fence in the background.

McCarthy did not specify what he thought Mayorkas lied about, but Republicans have repeatedly dinged him for testifying in a congressional hearing last year that the border is secure.

The issue of whether there is “operational control” at the border is central to the argument from hard-line conservative House Republicans that Mayorkas should be impeached.

That term refers to the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a law that says operational control of the border means prevention “of all unlawful entries” to the United States.

McCarthy has not endorsed impeaching Mayorkas, but in November called on him to resign, saying that House GOP investigations will determine whether they can open an impeachment inquiry.

“What has changed from President Trump to President Biden? There has been no legislation change, but why has the border — why has this region gone from 66,000 people come across to 250,000?” McCarthy said.

The press conference took place on the private property of a rancher.

“His family has found 14 dead bodies on his ranch in just the last couple years,” McCarthy said. "Those are human bodies. He tells the story of his grandson smelling the body. That is different from a dead cow.”

“Why is that happening? Because the administration's policies that is allowing it to happen,” McCarthy said. “When you look at the gaps in the wall. Why are they there? Why are these lights wired but not working? Because we got a new president that said to stop it. We paid for the metal to go up but it's stored far away. There's gaps that allow it to come in. That’s wrong.”

The trip marks McCarthy’s first visit to the border as Speaker. He was accompanied by four freshman House Republicans who flipped Democratic-held seats in 2022: Rep. Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), whose district includes parts of Cochise County; Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Jen Kiggans (Va.), and Derrick Van Orden (Wis.).

“There are two people that can really have an immediate impact on the situation in this country, and that's President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas,” Ciscomani said. “They both have failed, and they have shown no interest in fixing this issue. So I invite him here to the border to see what we saw today. Talk to the people that we talked to today and realize what impact this is having in our communities.”

Ciscomani said that the purpose of the trip was not to discuss immigration reform, but to discuss border security.

“These are two different issues and we need to deal with them separately,” Ciscomani said.

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

Posted on (Updated 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.” 

McCarthy to lead congressional delegation to southern border

Posted on (Updated by Mychael Schnell

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is leading a congressional delegation to the southern border on Thursday, marking his first visit to the border since winning the gavel last month.

Republican Reps. Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore.), Jen Kiggans (Va.) and Derrick Van Orden (Wis.) — all first-term lawmakers — will accompany McCarthy on the trip. The group will be traveling within the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, and they will be briefed and receive an aerial tour from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, according to McCarthy.

Ciscomani delivered the Republicans' State of the Union response in Spanish last week.

The trip comes a little more than one month after McCarthy won the Speakership in a 15-ballot election that forced him to give up a number of concessions to shore up support among the party’s right flank, including a floor vote on border legislation.

McCarthy made securing the border a key part of his agenda during the midterm elections, and in the lead-up to the Speaker race. In November, shortly after the midterms, McCarthy traveled to El Paso, Texas, and called on Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to resign over his handling of the southern border — a gesture toward conservative Republicans who had been pushing for impeachment.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) in December said the Border Safety and Security Act would pass in the first two weeks of the new Congress, but it has not yet come to the floor because of disagreements within the party.

The legislation would allow Mayorkas to turn away migrants in an effort to reach "operational control" at the border. Some lawmakers, however, have raised concerns about the limits it would place on asylum.

Some Republicans have been adamant about impeaching Mayorkas. Earlier this month, GOP lawmakers filed a second bill to impeach the secretary. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) called Mayorkas the “chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border.”

McCarthy has on a number of occasions said he will not use impeachment for political purposes, vowing to launch an inquiry if a reason presents itself. He reiterated that stance last week.

“We will never use impeachment for political reasons. It's just not going to happen,” McCarthy said during a press conference when asked about a potential timeline for impeachment. “That doesn't mean if something rises to the level [of] impeachment, we would not do it.”

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security hired a law firm to help respond to a potential impeachment of Mayorkas.

House weaponization panel opens first hearing with a partisan bang

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

The GOP’s government weaponization subcommittee launched its first hearing Thursday, offering a dizzying flood of claims that highlight the partisan divisions over the role of the federal government and the legitimacy of the newly created panel.

Republicans formed the committee as a way to counter alleged abuse of a government they say is abusing its power to target conservatives. Democrats see the committee as the weapon itself, a vehicle for the GOP to forward conspiracy theories that will mobilize the Republican base ahead of 2024.

Helmed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of both the subcommittee and the overall Judiciary Committee where it is housed, Thursday’s hearing included a quartet of current and former lawmakers, with the GOP inviting former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who left the Democratic Party, to testify.

“Over the course of our work in this committee, we expect to hear from government officials and experts like we have here today. We expect to hear from Americans who've been targeted by the government. We expect to hear from people in need. And we expect to hear from the FBI agents who have come forward as whistleblowers,” Jordan said Thursday.

“Protecting the Constitution shouldn't be partisan,” he added.

Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), the top Democrat on the panel, countered that the conception of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government itself was purely partisan.

“I'm deeply concerned about the use of this select subcommittee as a place to settle scores, showcase conspiracy theories and advance an extreme agenda that risks undermining Americans' faith in our democracy,” Plaskett said at the outset of the hearing.

The hearing, convened to broadly explore politicization of the FBI and the Justice Department, went even wider, with a first panel of current and former lawmakers offering a roadmap of the suite of potential topics the panel could cover.

References to the investigation of former President Trump, probes into President Biden's son Hunter Biden, alleged abuse of authority at the IRS, complaints of media coverage and social media company actions were woven together in opening statements from Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rob Johnson (R-Wis.). 

Grassley complained of a “triad” of influences seeking to limit a number of his own inquiries, stymied by what he said were partisan media, the FBI and Democratic colleagues.

“What I’m about to tell you sounds like it’s out of some fiction spy thriller, but it actually happened,” he said.

Johnson said his 10-minute opening statement “barely scratched the surface in the striking complexity, power and destructive nature of the forces that we face.”

The two, along with Rep. Jamie Raskin (Md.), the top Democrat on the oversight committee who served as the party’s witness Tuesday, each took a page out of Jordan’s book, rattling off a list of examples of impropriety, whether by the government or allies of Trump.

“Weaponization is the right name for this federal subcommittee. Not because weaponization of the government is targeted. But because weaponization of government is its purpose,” Raskin said.

“The odd name of the weaponization subcommittee constitutes a case of pure psychological projection.”

A second panel included Jonathan Turley, an attorney and often-used Republican witness, as well as two former FBI agents, including James Baker, who penned the book “The Fall of the FBI: How a Once Great Agency Became a Threat to Democracy.”

In questions with the witnesses, lawmakers' own assessments of the FBI were on display.

“We come not to trash the FBI, but to rescue the FBI from political capture,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).

Gaetz, a last-minute addition to the panel in place of Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), was previously under investigation by the Justice Department in connection with a sex-trafficking probe, but career prosecutors recommended against charging him.

Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), who served as counsel to House Democrats in the first impeachment of Trump, asked Jordan to turn over transcripts of its interviews with the FBI whistleblowers they’ve spoken with.

He also said it was the former president who politicized the agency.

“I worked in the Department of Justice for 10 years alongside a lot of FBI special agents, and their biggest concern and the most damage to the morale of the FBI occurred after Donald Trump started attacking the FBI because he was being attacked by the FBI. And that is what this subcommittee is all about,” he said.

Partisan rift widens on immigration policy, as seen in two House hearings 

Posted on (Updated by Rafael Bernal

Republicans and Democrats kicked off the first major immigration policy meetings of the new Congress at odds, with little agreement on even the most basic facts on the issue.

The parties have now faced off on the legislative stage twice, in hearings convened by the House Judiciary and House Oversight and Accountability committees. They’ve accomplished little more than to highlight the growing partisan split, despite a plea to “find a solution" from the El Paso Border Patrol sector chief.

The Judiciary Committee, led by GOP firebrand Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio), hosted the more combative hearing, focusing on an alleged correlation between immigration and fentanyl trafficking and accusing the Biden administration of purposely dismantling border security.

"Make no mistake, the Biden administration is carrying out its plan," said Jordan in his opening remarks last week.

"We all heard [Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas, who sat in front of this committee and said, 'we are executing our plan on the border.' And we all heard President Biden say, 'we're trying to make it easier for people to get here.' Well, they're certainly succeeding in that," added Jordan.

Tuesday’s Oversight hearing led by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), which featured two Border Patrol sector chiefs as witnesses, was comparatively phlegmatic, though Democrats still voiced their anger at the GOP's handling of the subject matter.

"The extreme MAGA forces in the Republican Party have chosen to abandon the pro-immigration stance of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan and instead spread fear about a 'foreign invasion,' paranoia about the racist and antisemitic 'Great Replacement' mythology, and disinformation about fentanyl — the vast majority of which is brought into our country by American smugglers working for the international drug cartels and traveling through lawful ports of entry," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee.

"I ardently hope today’s hearing will become a chance to search for bipartisan agreement rather than another missed opportunity. … Turning this into more bad political theater will just extend the long pattern of failure on this question."

But Raskin's hopes for bipartisanship were quickly quashed.

Following Comer and Raskin's opening remarks, Comer took the microphone to complain about a White House memo released early Tuesday that said, "House Republicans are more interested in staging political stunts than on rolling up their sleeves to work with President Biden and Democrats in Congress," and a tweet from the Oversight Democrats wishing, "Good morning and good luck to everyone except @GOPoversight members who are using today's hearing to amplify white nationalist conspiracy theories instead of a comprehensive solution to protect our borders and strengthen our immigration system."

"I mean, really? I don't even know what to say about that," said Comer, before reminding Democrats that House rules prohibit personal attacks between members.

For the next five hours, Oversight members essentially replicated the bifurcated proceedings of a week prior at the Judiciary Committee.

At the heart of the rift, apparent in both hearings, is a disagreement over whether the fentanyl crisis, legal immigration, asylum and border security should be treated as separate issues, or whether a border crackdown would resolve them all.

But the witnesses were a key distinction between the two hearings.

Comer invited two active duty border security professionals, Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Agent Gloria Chavez and Tucson Sector Chief Agent John Modlin, both of whom fielded questions from Republicans and Democrats alike on a variety of border-related issues.

“If I wanted to have a big political hearing that was full of red meat, we would have victims’ families that lost their lives to fentanyl. We would have people that have been human trafficked. But we’re not. We just asked four Border Patrol bosses," Comer told attendants at a National Press Club event last month.

Jordan took the "red meat" approach, calling on Brandon Dunn, a father whose son died from a fentanyl overdose and the founder of Forever 15 Project, an organization to raise awareness of the dangers of the drug.

The Ohio Republican also called on Cochise County, Ariz., Sheriff Mark Dannels and Dale Lynn Carruthers, county judge of Terrell County, Texas (though Carruthers was unable to attend because of weather conditions).

Advocates were heavily critical of Jordan's choice of Dannels and Carruthers as witnesses, pointing to Dannels's frequent appearances on right-wing media and alleged connections to immigration restrictionist groups.

Heidi Beirich, an expert in American and European right-wing groups and co-founder of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, said both Dannels and Carruthers had embraced the rhetoric of an "invasion" at the southern border.

"The fact that Daniels and Carruthers have engaged in this racist rhetoric about immigrants and their ties to hate and other extremist groups disqualify them from any productive discussions on things related to immigration," said Beirich.

Scores of Democrats called out the GOP's "invasion" rhetoric as going too far, though most Republicans avoided the word, and Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) defended its use.

"The definition of an invasion is an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity,” he said, repeating claims that enough fentanyl has entered the U.S. to “kill every American five times.”

"I would consider that to be the direct definition of the word invasion,” Hunt said.

But Democrats largely countered that point with Customs and Border Protection data that shows more than 90 percent of fentanyl enters the United States through legal ports of entry.

"This hearing isn't about border security or solving our opioid crisis. It isn't even facts. What it's about is painting immigrants as villains in order for my colleagues to further their anti-immigrant agenda," said Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.).

"Republicans are trying to rewrite history to hide their extremist agenda from the American people," he added. "This extreme wing is trying to say that immigrants are trafficking fentanyl across an unchecked border but we know that that's not true. Why? Because it happens at the ports of entry by U.S. citizens, not mainly by asylum seekers."

The partisan split on immigration policy prescriptions is nothing new.

"This is just exactly the kind of finger-pointing rather than serious efforts of problem solving, and political theater rather than problem solving that we're likely to see because the Congress has abdicated its role for decades now, where immigration – and updating immigration laws and capabilities – are concerned," said Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service who now leads the Migration Policy Institute's U.S. Immigration Policy Program.

But the rift has grown in scope and in political impact.

"​​The worldview seems so dichotomous. How in the world do we bridge a gap?" said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who shortly after the Judiciary hearing led a group calling for the impeachment of Mayorkas.

Democrats are convinced the GOP's hard line is just political grandstanding.

"It's the presidential election starting now. Immigration is the issue. It's an effective one that continues to be used over and over. It will be ugly," said Rep. Lou Correa (D-Calif.).

Despite the distance between the two parties, the Border Patrol officers at Tuesday’s hearing, who largely relayed a landscape of officers under-resourced compared with smugglers and cartels, pleaded for some kind of legislative action.

"I think we really just need to embrace change, good change, so that we reform our immigration law and have that balance between immigration and border security and get serious about that. We need to find a solution," said Chavez, the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol sector chief.

Emily Brooks contributed.

Mary Miller to skip Biden’s State of the Union

Posted on (Updated by Rachel Scully

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said she will skip President Biden's State of the Union on Tuesday, saying she does not want to "show up to and listen to him continue to lie."

In a statement released Monday by her office, Miller said she is boycotting the president’s speech over his failure to properly address recent issues including the national security risk posed by the Chinese balloon and the discovery of classified documents in his home and office.

"Joe Biden’s presidency has been filled with lie after lie, especially lies about the border being secure, inflation being temporary, and the DOJ targeting parents for attending school board meetings," she said. "I will not be attending Biden’s State of the Union to listen to him lie about the damage he has caused to our country while the left-wing media and members of Congress applaud his lies.”

Miller also lamented former Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up President Trump's third State of the Union address in 2020, "which celebrated a secure border, support for our military, and American energy independence."

In an interview with Breitbart News over the weekend, Miller also accused Biden of lying about the southern border being secure and the impact of his policies on energy prices.

“I mean, I could go on and on with his lies,” she added.

Even though she won’t attend, she’s invited a guest.

In the statement released by her office, Miller announced that should will be bringing Retired Illinois Air Force Colonel (Ret.) Mark A. Hurley as her guest, who left the military over Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine.

“Biden used the COVID vaccine mandate as a political purge to force the best and the brightest out of our military, and Biden has still failed to provide accountability for his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan more than two years ago,” Miller said.

Hurley called the invite an “honor” and praised Miller and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for their efforts to end the COVID military vaccine requirement.

“These legislative leaders continued the battle we did not have time to complete through our normal chain of command,” Hurley said. “We are truly grateful for the thousands of military careers they have saved.”

Miller will likely not be alone in her decision, as many lawmakers in the past have also skipped a president's State of the Union to project partisan disgust.

In 1999, several GOP lawmakers boycotted then-President Clinton's address while the Senate was still conducting an impeachment trial over his affair with a White House intern. More recently, during former President Trump’s time in office, several Democratic lawmakers chose to boycott his State of the Union addresses, as well as his inauguration.

Updated at 6:09 p.m.

Republicans introduce second impeachment article for Mayorkas

Posted on (Updated 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.”

Jim Jordan wields the gavel — and new power

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the pugnacious lawmaker who has been one of former President Trump’s top defenders, has long had a microphone. But now, Jordan has something he’s long sought: a gavel.

Once a thorn in the side of House GOP leaders, Jordan has been elevated to be a top attack dog against Democrats. With the new power to not only direct congressional hearings but utilize subpoenas, Jordan will be both a standard-bearer for the GOP base and a sculptor of the Washington political landscape for the next two years.

In Jordan’s debut hearing as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, the first in a series planned on examining border and migration policies, he made clear that his fiery style is sticking around as his power increases. 

He accused the Biden administration of intentionally not having “operational control” of the border. 

“Month after month after month, we have set records for migrants coming into the country. … It seems deliberate. It seems premeditated. It seems intentional,” Jordan said.

The comment lays the groundwork for potential impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, a process Jordan would oversee.

Jordan’s fast-talking, confrontational style is exactly what House GOP members like to see from him — and what sets off alarm bells for Democrats.

“Jordan has many talents, and one of them is that he can speak extremely rapidly. So I tell members, the key thing is to take notes on what he's saying so you don't forget about some drive-by fallacies or mischaracterizations that you might forget about by the end of the statement,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and ranking member on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

“I always feel like there is a real three-dimensional human being struggling to get out behind the rapid-fire, right-wing polemicist that we see on stage. But everybody thinks I'm an optimist,” Raskin said.

GOP members, on the other hand, praised Jordan for how he has led Republicans on the panel. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said that Jordan is "very good at not monopolizing time" and ensures that other members have time to talk. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) praised Jordan for elevating members based on their talents rather than by seniority.

“If you've got a band, there's some people who won't hire a guitarist who's better than them or a drummer who's better than them, and so the band suffers. Jim Jordan is the opposite of that,” Massie said.

But Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who has clashed with Jordan on antitrust issues, was more terse. “He's going to get some feedback instead of giving feedback all the time," he said of Jordan holding the gavel.

In addition to taking a look at policies on the border, major topics for Jordan-led investigations by the Judiciary panel will include GOP allegations of political bias at the Department of Justice and FBI as well as in big tech and social media.

Jordan’s overall popularity in the House GOP was on display during Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) battle to win the Speakership. Some of the 20 members who forced McCarthy into a drawn-out floor fight nominated and voted for Jordan instead.

Jordan, a founder of the confrontational House Freedom Caucus, had challenged McCarthy to lead House Republicans in 2018. 

But Jordan supported McCarthy for Speaker, saying that his priority was to oversee investigations. After the 2018 challenge, Jordan was elevated to be ranking member on the Oversight panel and then switched over to be ranking member of the Judiciary panel.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of the members who voted for Jordan to be Speaker, said Jordan is “our hardest-working, most talented number.”

Jordan is also heading up a new GOP select subcommittee formed with the goal of investigating the “weaponization” of the federal government, which is expected to probe deeper into alleged political bias in the Department of Justice and FBI, including its role in investigating former President Trump.

It’s a role that will leave the fiery Jordan front and center in representing the GOP, this time imbued with subpoena power as he works to arm-wrestle Biden administration agencies previously under little obligation to comply with minority oversight.

Much of the work of the weaponization subcommittee can pick up where Jordan and the larger Judiciary Committee left off.

Last year, he sent more than 100 letters to the FBI and Justice Department ahead of his own expected probes of the two agencies.

“The gavel changes a lot. His questions are now going to be answered where he has sent out hundreds of letters … that have been ignored for as much as four years between two committees,” Issa said.

The weaponization subcommittee was established with some unique powers, including the power to oversee “ongoing criminal investigations.” 

That allows the 15 lawmakers on the panel to have access to the same information shared with the House Intelligence Committee, which receives some of the most closely guarded information the intelligence community shares with members of Congress. 

Democrats fear the panel could be used to interfere with multiple ongoing probes, including into former President Trump for his role in the deadly Jan. 6, 2021, riot as well as the mishandling of classified records at his Florida home.

“Jim Jordan and Kevin McCarthy claim to be investigating the weaponization of the federal government when, in fact, this new select committee is the weapon itself,” Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said.