Category: policy

GOP leaders strike out on getting Tuberville to bend

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

Senate GOP leaders didn't want it to get to this point.

They tried and tried to get Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) to lift the holds he's placed on hundreds of military promotions — which have opened Republicans up to attacks from the Biden administration. 

But their efforts have failed, and they are now in a situation where the earliest a resolution might be found is September — when lawmakers will also be busy trying to avoid a government shutdown at the end of the month. 

“It’s hung around for a while. I support his goals,” said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican. “The challenge obviously is the mechanism he used to get to the result has created some challenges. We want to figure out a way to resolve it and address that.” 

“There are conversations now going on, which is good — between him and the military and others. We’ll have some time in August to work on a path forward, and hopefully we’ll find it,” he said. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been among those trying to find a resolution, Thune said. Tuberville said he and McConnell discussed the holds Wednesday, hours after the GOP leader froze and felt lightheaded in front of reporters. 

“At this point, everybody’s engaged trying to figure out how to solve this,” Thune added.

Tuberville began his holds in early March to protest a new Defense Department policy to reimburse service members who must travel to seek an abortion for those travel expenses.

Six months later, the list of holds has grown to 300. Senate Republicans were hoping to find a solution before leaving Washington for five weeks — five additional weeks during which those military officers will remain in limbo, fueling Democratic attacks and frustrating the Pentagon.

One Senate Republican said finding an offramp agreeable to both Tuberville and those opposed to the holds has become a “recurring discussion” in the Senate GOP conference, and that McConnell has been personally involved in that quest.

“There’s not a lunch that goes by that we don’t talk about it,” the senator said, but added there’s “no chance of a resolution” any time soon. 

Aside from the potential political and national security implications of the holds, McConnell is worried about the institutional implications. 

The longtime GOP leader recently told reporters at a press conference that he is concerned this could lead to a renewed Democratic effort to change the chamber’s rules. 

Despite disagreeing with Tuberville’s tactic, however, he says he recognizes it is the prerogative of any single senator to place a hold on a nominee. 

Senators on both sides of the aisle for months have been musing publicly and privately about what it would take to get the Alabama Republican to set his hold aside, but have come up empty at every turn. 

Initially, there had been hope that a vote on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would reverse the abortion travel policy could do the trick, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) led the effort.

But more recently, Tuberville has maintained that not only does any vote have to be standalone, but that the Pentagon would have to reverse its policy before any vote could be taken. 

Trying to bridge that gap for lawmakers has become a herculean challenge no one has been able to complete.

Tuberville didn’t comment on efforts by Senate GOP leaders to seek a remedy, but he criticized the Biden administration and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for their lack of outreach in trying to strike a deal. He also hasn’t had any further conversations with Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin since their July 17 call and said that the initial series of calls didn’t yield anything productive.

“There’s no conversation from the other side. It’s ‘our way or the highway.’ … How does that help?” Tuberville said. “They’re not worried about it, I guess. … I hate it, for the promotions and all that.” 

He added that he has yet to talk to Schumer, who has refused to use up floor time moving the nominees through regular order because he believes it is the Senate GOP’s job to figure a way out of the maze of military holds. 

“This is the responsibility of the Republican Senate caucus. … It’s up to them. I think in August, pressure will mount on Tuberville, and I think the Republicans are feeling that heat,” Schumer said late Thursday. “He’s boxing himself into a corner.”

But Democrats are trying to increase that pressure, with President Biden on Thursday night laying into the Alabama Republican and arguing his holds are harming military readiness and creating instability within the ranks of the armed forces. 

“This partisan freeze is already harming military readiness, security and leadership, and troop morale,” Biden said in remarks at the Truman Civil Rights Symposium in Washington. “Freezing pay, freezing people in place. Military families who have already sacrificed so much, unsure of where and when they change stations, unable to get housing or start their kids in the new school.”

Senate Democrats also took to the floor before and after the NDAA vote Thursday to criticize their GOP colleague. Since the hold was put into place, Democratic senators have made 12 attempts to move the military promotions in bloc via unanimous request. 

Perhaps adding to the difficulty, Tuberville has received a boost in support from voters at home and from conservative corners of the Senate GOP conference who believe he is making the right call, albeit a difficult one. 

They also argue that if Senate Democrats truly want to move on some of the nominations, they can start to do so via regular order — a move Democrats have avoided in order to not set precedent. 

“Democrats think they have a winning political thing on this. I don’t think they do, and I think Sen. Tuberville morally is in the right position with regard to the issue of abortion,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said. “The [Defense] Department has just as much of a responsibility to find a path forward as any single member does, and I’m not seeing the Department try to work in any fashion other than to simply put pressure on Sen. Tuberville.” 

“They’re not trying to find a path forward. They think this is one of those items where if they keep putting pressure on him, he’ll cave, and I don’t think he will,” Rounds continued. “On the issue, he’s correct.”

Senate passes annual defense bill, teeing up showdown with House

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

The Senate on Thursday night passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), teeing up a looming effort to find a deal on a compromise bill that satisfies the Democratic Senate and Republican House.

Senators voted 86-11 on the bill, which authorizes a topline figure of $886 billion for fiscal 2024, the total that was included in the debt ceiling deal struck between the Biden administration and House Republicans. 

The package passed with little drama after the Senate kicked off consideration of the bill and amendments early last week. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has repeatedly called on the chamber to move the process along in a bipartisan fashion. 

Six Democrats — Sens. Cory Booker (N.J.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.) — voted against the bill, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Four Republicans also opposed the package: Sens. Mike Braun (Ind.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.) and JD Vance (Ohio).

Schumer was trying to avoid anything resembling what took place in the House, when Republicans passed a version of the bill that included a number of GOP-led provisions, turning the normally bipartisan annual affair into a near-party-line vote.

Among them are items that would block the Pentagon's new policy that covers travel costs for military members who seek abortions, take aim at military diversity programs and bar funding for surgeries and hormone treatments for transgender troops.

“We’ve had an open and constructive amendment process for the NDAA, with both sides … working together in good faith. This is exactly how the process for the NDAA should look: bipartisan [and] cooperative,” Schumer said on the Senate floor Thursday morning. 

“What’s happening in the Senate is a stark contrast to the partisan race to the bottom we saw in the House,” Schumer said, noting that many of the items they included have little chance of being included in a final version later this year. “House Republicans should look to the Senate to see how things get done. … They are throwing on the floor partisan legislation that has no chance of passing. The contrast is glaring.” 

Included in the bill is a 5.2 percent pay increase for military personnel, $9.1 billion for various measures aimed at competitiveness with China and $300 million for Ukraine. 

Schumer on Thursday evening locked in a time agreement in order to finish work as lawmakers were champing at the bit to start the August recess, which will begin Friday and last through Labor Day weekend. 

Senators wrapped up work Thursday and voted on a series of amendments, having OK’d 25 amendments overall for the NDAA. Lawmakers also greenlighted a second manager’s package that includes 49 more amendments. 

While the process went smoothly this time around, the real show will be in the coming months, as both chambers attempt to reconcile the two proposals and pass an overall NDAA package that can emerge through the Senate with the requisite 60 votes. 

Already, things are tilting in the Senate’s direction, as provisions related to abortion and the culture wars are expected to be watered down. A final bill will need to be nailed down by the time members leave for Christmas. 

However, the process did not go off without any hitches. An effort led by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) to attach an item to give permanent residency to roughly 80,000 Afghans who’ve come to the U.S. following the country’s fall two years ago failed over opposition from top Republicans. 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) maintained a hold on Klobuchar’s bill, with Senate Republicans arguing that while they support the idea generally, the Minnesota Democrat’s proposal was too broad. Cotton has a bill of his own he is pushing that would create a pathway to residency for Afghan evacuees, but it would hamper the ability of the president to grant humanitarian parole. 

“This is our moment,” Klobuchar said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “We have had two years to show the world whether or not we’re going to stand with those that stood with us. … The decision we make right now of whether we live up to the covenant we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body,”

One Senate Republican told The Hill that while Klobuchar’s Afghan Adjustment bill was unsuccessful this go-around, a limited version will likely make its way into the final NDAA product later this year. 

Warren, Graham partner in proposing new agency to regulate tech giants

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Klar

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are teaming up on legislation to create a new agency that would have the power to regulate tech giants.

The bipartisan Digital Consumer Protection Commission Act, unveiled Thursday, would create an agency charged with oversight of Meta, Google, Amazon and other large tech companies and seek to promote industry competition and consumer privacy online.

The commission would work alongside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ), the agencies that currently operate as antitrust enforcers, according to the bill.

The legislation would also set regulations in place requiring “dominant platforms” to be licensed and allow for licenses to be removed for repeated anticompetitive and anti-consumer conduct violations.

The bill is the latest effort from Congress to rein in the power of tech giants.

More from The Hill

Last year, two bipartisan antitrust reform bills advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee — the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the Open App Markets Act — but failed to make it to the floor for a vote. Companion bills that advanced out of the House Judiciary Committee also failed to advance to a full floor vote. 

Warren and Graham’s proposal seeks to target tech regulation more broadly by creating a commission specifically tasked with oversight of the booming industry.

The legislation would also grant the new commission with oversight over how to respond to emerging risks, including from artificial intelligence (AI) — an area where lawmakers and regulators have been scrambling to understand and put rules in place.

“Enough is enough. It’s time to rein in Big Tech. And we can’t do it with a law that only nibbles around the edges of the problem,” the senators wrote in a joint op-ed published in The New York Times on Thursday. 

“Piecemeal efforts to stop abusive and dangerous practices have failed. Congress is too slow, it lacks the tech expertise, and the army of Big Tech lobbyists can pick off individual efforts easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Meaningful change — the change worth engaging every member of Congress to fight for — is structural,” they added. 

Lawmakers have long faced an uphill climb when pursuing tech reforms, with the industry launching massive lobbying campaigns targeting congressional legislation.

At the same time, Republicans leading the House have focused their tech agenda on content moderation battles rather than advancing bills aimed at reining in the market power of Big Tech.

For Warren, her proposal with Graham is the second time the progressive firebrand has recently joined forces with a colleague across the aisle. Last month, Warren joined Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) to put forward a bill that targets failed bank executives with harsher penalties.

Are UFOs a national security risk? Hearing puts Pentagon on notice

Posted on (Updated by Ellen Mitchell

Three former defense officials on Wednesday gave explosive testimony at a House hearing on unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAPs), warning that the sightings “potentially” pose national security risks. 

The witnesses before the House Oversight subcommittee — a former Navy pilot, a retired Navy commander and an ex-Air Force intelligence official — also stressed that the government has been far too secretive in acknowledging such incidents, prompting calls from lawmakers for the intelligence community to be more forthcoming.

“If UAP are foreign drones, it is an urgent national security problem. If it is something else, it is an issue for science. In either case, unidentified objects are a concern for flight safety,” said Ryan Graves, a former F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot who founded Americans for Safe Aerospace, a non-profit group meant to encourage pilots to report UAP incidents. 

And all three witnesses replied “yes” when asked if the UAPs could be collecting reconnaissance information on the United States or probing the country’s capabilities. 

The hearing seemed to unite lawmakers in a push for answers on a topic that has largely been dismissed by politicians, who for decades have been hesitant to touch on UAPs — also known as unidentified flying objects, or UFOs — and other extraterrestrial life lest they become a laughingstock. 

A series of reports from The New York Times beginning in 2017 began to change that. The reports — exploring the Pentagon’s secretive Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program and DOD-documented UAP sightings. 

Lawmakers also worry that the sightings could be tied to military technology owned by adversaries but unbeknownst to most Americans. 

“UAPs, whatever they be, may pose a serious threat to our military and our civilian aircraft, and that must be understood,” said the subpanel's ranking member, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.). “We should encourage more reporting, not less on UAPs. The more we understand, the safer we will be.” 

The Pentagon has only given tentative information on UAPs, in 2021 releasing a report which found more than 140 inexplicable encounters. 

Videos released by the Defense Department have also shown unexplained happenings, including the now famous “Tic Tac” video, taken in November 2004 on a routine training mission with the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz off the coast of southern California. 

During the encounter, Navy ships and planes used sensors to track an oval-shaped flying object that resembled a Tic Tac breath mint, with four pilots visually sighting the apparatus that flew at high speed over the water before abruptly disappearing.  

Former Navy pilot David Fravor, the commander of the mission and the individual who filmed the video, on Wednesday told the committee that the object “was far superior to anything that we had at the time, have today or looking to develop in the next 10 years.” 

He added that he found it “shocking” that “the incident was never investigated” and said none of his crew were ever questioned.

And fellow witness Graves said during the hearing that he had seen UAPs off the Atlantic coast “every day for at least a couple years.” 

He said the sightings were “not rare or isolated” – noting that UAP objects have been detected “essentially where all Navy operations are being conducted across the world,” and were also seen by military aircrews and commercial pilots. 

But Graves also estimated that only 5 percent of sightings are reported, which he attributed to stigma among pilots who feel it will “lead to professional repercussions either through management or through their yearly physical check.” 

But the most explosive testimony of the day came from David Grusch, a former member of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency whose previous allegations on UAPs and the government’s efforts to conceal them sparked Wednesday’s hearing. 

Grusch claimed that the Pentagon and other agencies are holding back information about UAPs and hiding a long-running program that is attempting to reverse engineer the objects. 

Grusch said that he “absolutely” believes the U.S. government is in possession of non-human technology, adding that he knows “the exact locations” of that material.

He also claimed that he has faced serious reprisals for his statements and had knowledge of those who have been harmed or injured as part of ongoing efforts to cover up extraterrestrial technology.   

Grusch in the past has claimed that the U.S. government has for decades recovered nonhuman craft with nonhuman species inside. 

He repeated similar assertions at Wednesday’s hearing, though he repeatedly told lawmakers he could not share details in a public setting and that his information was based upon what he had been told by others. 

Republicans and Democrats now want to get to the bottom of what these incidents mean for U.S. national security.  

“There clearly is a threat to the national security of the United States of America,” Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) said. “As members of Congress, we have a responsibility to maintain oversight and be aware of these activities so that if appropriate we take action.” 

He later told reporters that lawmakers have “a responsibility now to move forward aggressively to get to the answers of these questions.”

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told reporters that a bipartisan group of lawmakers will seek a closed meeting with the witnesses to discuss confidential information in a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF.  

And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Wednesday's hearing was the “first of many” on the government's handling of information related to UAPs, which “is an issue of government transparency.” 

“I’m shocked, actually, at just the amount of information that came out because all the roadblocks that we were put up against,” he told reporters. 

“I think what’s gonna happen now, the floodgates — other people are gonna say, ‘You know, I’ve got some information, I’d like to come swear in,’ and that’s what we’re going to start doing.”

Parnas dismisses Oversight GOP bribery investigation as ‘a wild goose chase’

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Lev Parnas, once a right-hand man to Rudy Giuliani, asked the GOP’s top congressional investigator to abandon efforts to uncover wrongdoing by the Biden family in Ukraine, calling the matter “nothing more than a wild goose chase” that has been “debunked again and again.”

Parnas’s Tuesday letter to House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), obtained by The Hill, notes that Parnas and Giuliani's repeated efforts to dig up dirt on President Biden or his son Hunter yielded nothing and confused Ukrainian prosecutors.

It also recaps the efforts taken by the Trump team that resulted in the launching of the first impeachment inquiry into former President Trump. Democrats alleged he withheld aid from Ukraine in an effort to pressure officials there to provide incriminating evidence on the Bidens.

“Throughout all these months of work, the extensive campaigns and networking done by Trump allies and Giuliani associates, including the enormously thorough interviews and assignments that I undertook, there has never been any evidence that Hunter or Joe Biden committed any crimes related to Ukrainian politics,” he said.

He said Giuliani and all others involved in the matter “knew that these allegations against the Bidens were false.”

“Never, during any of my communications with Ukrainian officials or connections to Burisma, did any of them confirm or provide concrete facts linking the Bidens to illegal activities. In fact, they asked me multiple times why our team was so concerned with this idea.” 

Comer dismissed the contents of Parnas’s letter.

“Now there's somebody that Giuliani was running around with and says we should drop investigations because Giuliani and him already looked into it. I mean, I don't think that that's credible,” he said.

“We're starting to see money from Ukraine coming in on some of these bank statements that we're going to release later,” he added, a reference to his investigation into Biden family finances.

Comer has based much of his investigation on an unverified tip to the FBI from a source who heard secondhand allegations Biden accepted a bribe. The bureau was unable to corroborate the tip.

Parnas has also previously provided a transcript of a conversation he says was with Mykola Zlochevsky, the reported source of the information, denying any improper conduct by President Biden or his son Hunter, who was serving on the board of energy company Burisma, which Zlochevsky owns. That information was turned over during the impeachment inquiry.

Parnas was convicted in court of making illegal campaign contributions to Trump.

His letter comes as Comer is under increasing pressure to advance his inquiry into President Biden, who he has alleged accepted a bribe.

Even some in the GOP have criticized his investigation, with former Trump advisor Steve Bannon saying last month Comer needed to “be prepared,” adding, “You are not serious. It’s all performative.” 

Comer acknowledged Monday the difficulties of explaining the financial crimes he has alleged.

“Two things I've learned: People don't know what a shell company is, and they don't know what an LLC is. They don't know what money laundering is. We're going to try to explain in a more simple form ‘this is what they did,’” he told reporters.

Those in Trump’s orbit have alleged President Biden sought to withhold aid from Ukraine because its top prosecutor was threatening to investigate his son. Biden, joined by the international community, actually sought to pressure Ukraine to remove the man, Viktor Shokin, over corruption charges. 

Parnas’s letter spends ample time breaking down the investigative efforts of Giuliani, which included trying to get Shokin’s replacement, Yuriy Lutsenko, to retain him for $200,000. 

It details the repeated dead ends they hit, and the numerous efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials.

“Giuliani’s message to the [then-Ukrainian] president [Petro Poroshenko], who was running for reelection, was that Trump would support him and help him win if he made an official announcement of an investigation against Joe Biden,” Parnas writes.

Parnas ends with a plea to Comer to halt his investigation.

“There is no evidence of Joe or Hunter Biden interfering with Ukrainian politics, and there never has been,” Parnas writes.

“With all due respect, Chairman Comer, the narrative you are seeking for this investigation has been proven false many times over, by a wide array of respected sources. There is simply no merit to investigating this matter any further. I hope my letter has provided you with additional clarity on this point.”

Military holds enter fifth month as Republicans struggle to appease Tuberville

Posted on (Updated by Al Weaver

The chance that Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) will lift his hold on military promotions over the Pentagon's abortion policy anytime soon has dimmed drastically as Senate Republicans struggle to make a deal with him to end the months-long saga. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee this week failed to advance a bill that would have overturned the Pentagon's policy that covers some expenses for service members who must travel for an abortion. That, coupled with a bitter back-and-forth between Tuberville and the Biden administration and lack of progress in talks with Republicans, means the holds are set to enter their fifth month with no end in sight. 

"Either side could make a move and right now neither side seems to think that these nominations are important enough to override the position that they find themselves in," Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Hill. "So we're at a stalemate."

As of this week, Tuberville is holding up 250 promotions for general and flag officers that are normally approved on the Senate floor via unanimous consent, and the anger among Democrats has not dissipated. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) on Tuesday made the 10th attempt by Senate Democrats to advance the military promotions, only to be blocked by the Alabama Republican. 

President Biden and the Pentagon also heaped more pressure on Tuberville this week. The president referred to the “former football coach from Alabama” during a fundraiser in Los Gatos, Calif., earlier this week, calling his hold “bizarre.” 

“I don’t remember it happening before,” Biden said. “I know I don’t look like I’ve been around, but I’ve been around a long time.”

The Pentagon also slammed at Tuberville earlier this week; Sabrina Singh, the Department of Defense’s deputy press secretary, criticized him for setting a “dangerous precedent” with his actions. 

Tuberville remains unmoved. 

He told The Hill earlier this week that there has not been internal pressure from Republicans to release his holds and that he has not heard directly from anyone in the administration or the Democratic side in recent weeks, outside of public missives. 

“We’ve probably gone backwards on that. Everyone’s gotten a closed mouth on this whole deal,” Tuberville told The Hill. 

But what it would take to move him off of his hold remains unclear to many. 

Tuberville told reporters that three things could get him to lift the hold on military promotions: A reversal of Pentagon policy, a successful vote to codify the policy or a failed vote to do so, with the latter two options coming both via a bill proposed by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). Tuberville’s staff clarified his comments, saying that a failed vote would not do the trick unless the Department of Defense dropped the policy ahead of a hypothetical vote on the Shaheen bill. 

None of the three options are likely, and no one has been willing to budge, meaning stalemate will likely go on for the foreseeable future. 

“It seems like everyone’s confused,” one Senate GOP aide said of the Tuberville situation. “I don’t know how we get to a solution here. I’m not sure there’s anyone on this planet that can talk him off of this. Plenty have tried.” 

Multiple Senate Republicans in recent weeks have talked to Tuberville about just that, but all have been stymied. Sen Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) brought up an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would rescind the Pentagon’s abortion policy that was put into place late last year, but it was blocked during the markup on the bill this week. 

On top of that, Tuberville had indicated already that a committee level vote on the item would not move him off of his hold, even though he voted for it.

“I’m not going for a committee vote,” Tuberville said.

Even those supportive of his push have tried to find a resolution. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told The Hill that he has talked with the Alabama Republican about the situation and was hopeful something could be done to rectify things via the annual defense authorization bill. 

“I don’t disagree with Sen. Tuberville’s point. But … there needs to be a means to accomplish that,” Cornyn said. “I believe in counting the votes, as opposed to depending on my optimism, and I’m not sure they’re there yet. I’m not sure they’re not there, but I think that’s the way to go.” 

Others, however, indicated they are tired of discussing the prolonged back-and-forth.

“I’ve answered a lot of questions about [this],” Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), an Armed Services Committee member, said when asked if she’s sensed any movement on the holds. Fischer initially said that she was not supportive of Tuberville’s tactics before telling reporters that she supports his efforts.  

Lawmakers are starting to ask whether they could move certain nominees one by one, burning floor time. The situation will be especially acute next month as five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including Chairman Mark Milley, will start to be replaced. 

Senate Democrats indicated this week that they are not prepared to do that and are leaning on Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has said he does not back Tuberville’s hold, and other Senate GOP members to pressure their colleague from Alabama. 

“I don’t know what we’ll do if we have to explore other options,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. “Right now, the most feasible and readily available and timely way to solve it is for him to back down and for his colleagues to persuade him that’s the wise course.” 

List of Democrats boycotting Modi’s address to Congress grows

Posted on (Updated by Sarakshi Rai

The list of Democratic lawmakers boycotting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's joint address to Congress on Thursday is growing.

Progressive Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) on Thursday said they wouldn't attend the event. They join fellow progressive Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

“When it comes to standing up for human rights, actions speak louder than words," Bush and Bowman said in a joint statement with Tlaib and Omar.

The statement blasted the decision to invite the Indian leader adding that "by bestowing Prime Minister Modi with the rare honor of a joint address, Congress undermines its ability to be a credible advocate for the rights of religious minorities and journalists around the world."

The lawmakers added that they "stand in solidarity with the communities that have been harmed by Modi and his policies."

"We must never sacrifice human rights at the altar of political expediency and we urge all Members of Congress who profess to stand for freedom and democracy to join us in boycotting this embarrassing spectacle.”

Lee, in a separate statement, said Modi's government "has targeted journalists, emboldened violent Hindu nationalist groups, and jailed political opponents."

"We are not true allies if we cannot push them to uphold basic human rights and religious freedoms," she added.

The statements come just hours before the Indian prime minister was set to arrive at the Capitol. 

Modi's speech to the joint session of Congress comes hours after he met with President Biden and announced a slew of military, tech and health deals between the U.S. and India. 

During the joint press conference at the White House, Modi brushed aside a question about human rights abuses and democratic backsliding in his country.

While Democrats in both the House and the Senate have urged Biden to address the issue of human rights in his meetings with Modi, the historic address is set to be a widely attended event.

Ocasio-Cortez joins other squad members in boycotting Modi speech

Posted on (Updated by Sarakshi Rai

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is joining other progressives in boycotting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's joint address to Congress.

In a tweet, the New York Democrat urged her colleagues who stand for "pluralism, tolerance and freedom of speech" to join her boycott.

Ocasio-Cortez highlighted Modi's previous ban from entering the U.S. and reports from the State Department on India's record on religious freedoms, as well as the country's current ranking in the Press Freedom Index.

"A joint address is among the most prestigious invitations and honors the United States Congress can extend. We should not do so for individuals with deeply troubling human rights records - particularly for individuals whom our own State Department has concluded are engaged in systematic human rights abuses of religious minorities and caste-oppressed communities," Ocasio-Cortez added.

Her statement comes a day after Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), the two Muslim women in Congress, said they would not be attending the Indian leader's speech.

Tlaib added Tuesday on Twitter that Modi’s “long history of human rights abuses, anti-democratic actions, targeting Muslims and religious minorities, and censoring journalists is unacceptable.”

“Prime Minister Modi’s government has repressed religious minorities, emboldened violent Hindu nationalist groups, and targeted journalists/human rights advocates with impunity,” Omar wrote in her own statement.

While Democrats in both the House and the Senate have urged President Biden to address the issue of human rights in his meetings with Modi, the historic address is set to be a widely attended event.

This will be the Indian prime minister’s second address to the joint session of Congress and first official state visit to the United States.

Both parties hear what they want to hear during rare Durham public hearing

Posted on (Updated by Rebecca Beitsch

Special counsel John Durham was both lionized and scrutinized by lawmakers as he appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to discuss his probe into the FBI’s 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign. 

Durham provided little new information in his May report but confirmed a series of FBI missteps previously documented by the news media, including that the FBI failed to provide a full picture of the evidence when seeking a wiretap of Trump campaign aide Carter Page.  

In a rare public appearance Wednesday, Durham called his findings “sobering.” 

“The problems identified in the report are not susceptible to overnight fixes. … They cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training or additional policy requirements. Rather, what is required is accountability, both in terms of the standards to which our law enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance,” he said. 

More House coverage from The Hill

Over more than five hours of questioning, Republicans and Democrats zeroed in on the parts of the report most favorable to their positions.  

To Republicans, Durham’s scathing 305-page report supports their arguments about a Department of Justice and FBI that has been weaponized against former President Trump.  

Democrats argued the report backed the FBI’s initial decision to open a probe into the Trump campaign, something they view as significant, since Trump called for Durham's appointment with high expectations that he’d find damaging material on the FBI.  

Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a chief Trump defender who has cast the FBI as “rotted to the core,” said the report served as an example that the bureau requires serious reform, as “any one of us could be next.”  

“There is [a double standard at the Department of Justice]. That has got to change, and I don't think more training, more rules is going to do it. I think we have to fundamentally change the FISA process, and we have to use the appropriations process to limit how American tax dollars are spent at the Department of Justice,” he added, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has the power to authorize a wiretap. 

Sign up for the latest from The Hill here

It was a tip from an Australian diplomat that ignited the FBI’s interest. The diplomat had spoken with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, who told him that Russia had damaging emails from then-competitor Hillary Clinton. It was that tip, not the later debunked Steele Dossier, that led the FBI to initiate the investigation. 

“We have many areas of disagreement across the aisle, but I am relieved that we have no disagreement about one of the fundamental conclusions of your report: that it was incumbent upon the FBI to open some form of investigation when presented with evidence that a presidential candidate and his associates are either coordinating campaign efforts with a hostile nation or being manipulated by such a hostile nation,” said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.). 

Several Democrats attacked Durham’s work, criticizing the report for not offering any recommendations for the FBI and calling attention to its failure to lead to criminal convictions. 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) noted that five Trump campaign associates were convicted of various crimes following the Mueller investigation.  

“In contrast to multiple Trump associates who were convicted, you brought two cases to a jury trial based on this investigation, and you lost both. So I don't actually know what we're doing here, because the author of the Durham report concedes that the FBI had enough information to investigate,” he said. 

“And thank goodness the FBI did, because vulnerable Trump associates who committed crimes were held accountable. And the best way to summarize what happened is: Thank you to the brave men and women of the FBI for doing their jobs.” 

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.)

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) addresses reporters after a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Republicans pivoted between complaints over the Justice Department and the treatment of Trump to possible FISA reforms that would limit law enforcement authority for spying both in the U.S. and abroad.  

“You detail how FBI personnel working on FISA applications violated protocols. They were cavalier at best, as you said, in your own words, towards accuracy and completeness. Senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards information that they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons or entities and … a significant reliance on investigative and leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents were relied upon here,” Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) said. 

Johnson went on to lament the involvement of Peter Strzok, previously deputy assistant director the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, who made negative comments about Trump in texts. 

“He said horrible things about President Trump, and all of his supporters by the way, how could we say he did not have political bias?” 

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.)

Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) leaves a closed-door House Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2023.

Rep. Laurel Lee (R-Fla.) criticized the FISA application that allowed the FBI to wiretap Page. 

“A FISA application was pursued without disclosing some relevant information to prosecutors or the court, without following standard procedural rules, utilizing investigative techniques that were the most intrusive without first exhausting other techniques, and instead pursuing the most invasive method possible from the outset against Mr. Page,” she said. 

Durham was also at times berated for his work, including by those who said he did not do enough to probe FBI misdeeds after Trump said Durham’s report would reveal the “crime of the century.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) was also gifted time by other members to question the course of the investigation.

Schiff critiqued Durham’s decision to issue a statement about an inspector general’s report on the same topic and repeatedly asked why one of the top prosecutors on the investigation resigned, a question Durham refused to answer.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said Durham’s investigative trip to Italy was just “looking for authentic pasta” as he griped that the special counsel’s work was insufficient.

“It seems like more than disappointment. It seems like you weren't really trying to expose the true core of the corruption,” Gaetz said. 

“It's not what's in your report that is telling, it's the omission, it's the lack of work you did. ... You let the country down.”

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.”