'Trying to figure it out': McCarthy's conservative rebels struggle with next steps

Conservative hardliners are already agitating for their next fight with Speaker Kevin McCarthy over hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts. Beyond that, though, they don’t know exactly what they want from him.

The murkiness emerged hours after they reached an agreement with GOP leaders to reopen the House floor that they'd had held hostage for days. A few blocks from the Capitol, most of the 11 Republicans behind the blockade huddled with their allies to haggle over a core question: What's next?

“We’re meeting, trying to figure it out,” Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), chair of the Trump-aligned House Freedom Caucus, said in a brief interview when asked that same question. He described this fall's government funding debate as "front and center" for conservatives, as it "should be."

But while the group clearly wants to drive down federal spending, it still hasn’t settled on a strategy to get there or what else to push for. That uncertainty lies at the heart of House Republicans’ often-chaotic state: McCarthy's biggest skeptics on the right are happy to use hardball tactics in their slim majority, even if it hurts the party’s priorities, yet their lack of clear demands make it nearly impossible for leadership to satisfy them — or for the resisters to wield their influence toward a clear endgame.

Overplaying their hand could also backfire on the hardliners, whose colleagues are starting to publicly fume that a handful of Republicans is torpedoing party unity. Some in the GOP rank and file fear that the right's demands won’t end with spending cuts, letting the same group of McCarthy critics who dragged out the January speaker’s race assert control over the rest of his time with the gavel.

“The Freedom Caucus is a diverse group, and we have diverse opinions about ways to implement a conservative agenda,” one of the members, Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.), said in a brief interview after Monday night’s meeting, adding that the next phase of action remains under discussion both within the group and with GOP leaders.

They’ll need to decide soon: McCarthy’s detractors have agreed to halt their blockade of the floor only for the next few pieces of legislation that come up, including Rep. Andrew Clyde's (R-Ga.) attempt to roll back a Biden regulation on guns equipped with pistol braces.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said unsticking Clyde’s measure was the rebel group’s first step, “and now we’re figuring out what’s next.” Notably, it's still far from clear that Clyde’s bill will have the votes to pass the House later Tuesday, according to a GOP lawmaker who is whipping the bill.

The biggest thing that the protesters clearly agree on is the need to drive down spending below what McCarthy and President Joe Biden agreed to. They’ve already convinced GOP leaders to essentially renege on last month’s bipartisan debt deal, instead pushing new funding levels that Democrats would never accept and forcing another standoff in the fall. Some, like Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), won’t rule out forcing a shutdown to get what they want.

“We’re looking at everything, that's not here yet,” Norman said when asked if he would be willing to hold up funding after the September deadline.

The group’s initial win was announced Monday night, when Appropriations Committee Chair Kay Granger (R-Texas) declared that Republicans would cut $130 billion from this year’s spending bills by drafting to pre-pandemic levels — well below the agreement McCarthy reached with the White House.

That was what Freedom Caucus members, including many of those who’ve been holding up the House floor, specifically demanded.

But some of those conservatives are gearing up to push their conference to go a step further, signaling they want spending bills below — not at — the fiscal 2022 year levels. And the hardliners have no interest in Congress' favorite accounting ploys, asserting they don't want to count clawing back old funds as spending cuts.

“One of the key structural things we’ve got to work through is whether you can achieve 2022 spending levels through recessions,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), referring to those clawbacks. “A lot of us who are concerned about spending worry that that is a budgetary gimmick.”

While some of his colleagues praised Granger’s move, Gaetz said he still had doubts: “I worry that [her] statement doesn’t clearly reflect compliance with the January agreement.”

As they demand more involvement in spending decisions, conservatives are in essence seeking a far larger concession from McCarthy — to revisit the deals cut when he became speaker with his detractors, many of whom are leading the latest protest.

The hardliner holdouts argue, for instance, that McCarthy failed to closely consult with them on the debt limit bill — and raised concerns about the other big pieces of legislation that the California Republican will have to negotiate with Democrats. That includes some of the year's biggest agenda items, including the 2023 farm bill, a mammoth defense policy package and an end-of-the-year surveillance program reauthorization.

While those issues do involve spending, they also encompass much thornier questions, such as work requirements, farm subsidies, Pentagon powers and the GOP’s increasingly toxic relationship with the FBI.

The talks between McCarthy and his right flank are being closely watched by the rest of the GOP conference. Already, intra-party tensions have spiked as many Republicans watch a fraction of their most conservative colleagues largely dictate the floor schedule — and seemingly increase their demands by the day.

There’s also consternation about the idea that Republicans reached a “power-sharing” agreement as part of the speaker's race. It's a term used by Gaetz and other conservatives that McCarthy himself has questioned.

“You have a conference of 222 people, and they would all be well advised to remember that they are one of [222]. … The majority was delivered by people in swing districts. People who represent areas Joe Biden won,” said Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), adding that conservatives “didn’t win the majority.”

And McCarthy allies warn that even if the group makes good on its threat of a repeat performance by sinking further bills amid causing headaches for leadership, conservatives are likely to confront even more intra-GOP frustration with their tactics.

“You can only pull the pin so many times,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “This isn’t just going to be leadership pushing back if this continues to go on … rank and file are going to go crazy.”

Olivia Beavers contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/B1YLIlD
via IFTTT

Read More

In the Senate Bidens spy pitch falls on deaf ears

The Biden administration’s latest bid to convince lawmakers to renew a soon-to-expire foreign surveillance power without significant new privacy safeguards is off to a rough start.

The problem? The administration keeps trying to show lawmakers the value of the spy tool, while Congress is fixated on cleaning up the repeated abuses that have occurred under it.

“I will only support the reauthorization of Section 702 of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act if there are significant reforms,” Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday during a panel hearing on oversight of the program.

The law allows U.S. spy agencies to collect the text, email and other digital communications of foreigners located abroad. But a series of recently documented abuses involving Americans whose data has been swept up into the program has led both Republicans and Democrats to push for sweeping changes ahead of the statute’s year-end expiration date.

“I have raised significant concerns in hearing after hearing after hearing about FISA and its shocking disregard for Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said at the hearing.

And year after year, Lee continued, he gets the same dismissive answer from the intelligence community: “These are not the droids you’re looking for.”

The hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents a key step in the administration’s effort to dissuade Congress from making major changes to the surveillance tool. The Committee shares jurisdiction over the law with the Senate Intelligence panel, meaning it is likely to play a strong role in any effort to reup it.

Witnesses representing the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, NSA and Office of the Director of National Intelligence dedicated much of their testimony Tuesday to arguing that the surveillance program is vital to U.S. national security.

“The information the CIA derives from FISA Section 702 collection is quite simply indispensable,” said David Cohen, deputy director of the CIA.

“Without it our ability to preserve the nation’s security will be significantly impaired,” added George Barnes, the deputy director of the NSA.

The officials also sought to buttress their case by declassifying new information about how the program has played a central role in thwarting drug trafficking and foreign cyberattacks.

But lawmakers on the panel were far more concerned about the privacy abuses that have occurred under the law — the vast majority of which concern the FBI’s ability to warrantlessly sift through data collected under the program for information on Americans.

“I’ve been a constant supporter of 702, and it’s very frustrating years into the process to have these errors,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Many of the abuses discussed Tuesday occurred prior to the FBI’s implementing a series of new compliance fixes in 2021 — a point administration officials were quick to note.

The administration is prepared to codify those changes into law, said FBI deputy director Paul Abbate. The measures, which include basic steps like requiring FBI officials to opt-in to searches within the database, have led to steep decline in those controversial searches, according to intelligence community oversight reports declassified in April.

Abbate also revealed at the hearing that the FBI is instituting two further reforms: a three-strike policy to discourage officers from conducting needless searches in the database, and a framework for incorporating FISA oversight into senior officials’ performance reviews.

But most lawmakers on the panel expressed interest in more sweeping reforms, above all a warrant requirement to limit the FBI’s ability to search through the 702 database for information on Americans.

“We’ve got an opportunity this year to make reforms, and we must do it,” Lee, a supporter of the warrant requirement, said Tuesday. Durbin added: “I’ve got to see more” than internal FBI compliance fixes, and said his support for the program is contingent on the warrant.

The administration witnesses Tuesday tried — but evidently failed — to convince lawmakers that’d be an unwise change.

“Unduly limiting the FBI’s ability to access lawfully collected information … will set us back decades,” DOJ assistant attorney general Matt Olsen said. The warrant, he added, “would put the nation at grave risk.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/sk52exO
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden rushes replacement armored vehicles to Ukraine after battlefield losses

The Biden administration is rushing more armored vehicles to Ukraine as the country’s forces suffer some early losses in the early thrusts of its counteroffensive against Russia.

The $325 million drawdown of U.S. military stocks announced Tuesday will also pump artillery shells and air defense missiles into the fight, in addition to sending 15 Bradley fighting vehicles to Ukraine after a similar number was lost recently in heavy fighting.

The latest package — the 40th since the start of the war — also includes 10 Stryker infantry carriers to add to the 90 already sent. The Army has supplied over 100 Bradleys to Ukraine, and has trained Ukrainians to use both vehicles.

By attacking through minefields while under Russian artillery fire, the Ukrainian army has already lost at least 16 Bradleys and four Leopard tanks, open source intelligence project Oryx has reported. Kyiv does not provide official numbers for battlefield losses.

NATO countries have trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops over the past year, many of whom are now being thrown into the fight across a vast swath of territory across hundreds of miles of front lines. Some of those units are equipped with the U.S.-made Bradleys and Strykers, and other with German-made Leopard tanks.

The Pentagon has pledged 31 Abrams tanks, but the Ukrainians are still training on them in Poland, and they won’t appear on the battlefield for months.

Unlike the surprise lightning offensive that took back hundreds of miles of territory in the fall, Kyiv has downplayed some Western expectations for this latest thrust, with well-entrenched Russian forces awaiting them entrenched behind vast minefields.

“It’s going to be a slow roll,” Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) said. “I can tell you as a former armor officer, breaking those types of trenches and defensive lines is incredibly costly and difficult. If they do it correctly, they’ll save the Western-provided tanks for the breakthrough.”

The Ukrainians “are making progress,” NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said Tuesday during an Oval Office visit with President Joe Biden. “The more land the Ukrainians are able to liberate, the stronger hand they will have at the negotiating table,” he said.

More aid will soon be on the way, as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley are en route to Germany for the next Ukraine Defense Contact Group and NATO defense ministerial meetings this week.

High on the agenda will be sustainment for the tanks and heavy armor Western allies have sent Ukraine, as the war grinds on and as Kyiv’s forces will need help in repairing battle-damaged equipment this summer.

The Ukrainian government is eager to begin working with the U.S. and European defense industries to establish maintenance facilities either in Ukraine or in nearby Poland.

“Several of our European counterparts have pre-existing relationships with Ukrainian industry,” said one Defense Department official, who was granted anonymity to speak to internal discussions. “I’ve talked to several European companies and they’re leveraging that and making plans for going forward.”

Long-term sustainment is one of the working groups established under the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meetings and it is “the most active working group right now,” the official said.

Joe Gould contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/G68mcno
via IFTTT

Read More

NSC maintains initial reporting on Chinese spy base in Cuba was inaccurate

A National Security Council spokesperson on Monday doubled down on comments from the White House and the Pentagon over the weekend calling initial reporting about Chinese efforts to establish a new spy base in Cuba “inaccurate.”

“The original reporting, as we said, was inaccurate,” spokesperson John Kirby said during the regularly scheduled White House press briefing. “We did the best we could in the moment to be as forthcoming as we could.”

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal, followed by POLITICO and other outlets, reported that China had been in conversations with Cuba to set up an eavesdropping facility roughly 100 miles from Florida — reporting that officials called inaccurate, without elaborating. But on Saturday, officials confirmed that such a base already existed, and has since at least 2019.

Kirby denounced the sources behind the initial report.

“We were as forthcoming as we should have been at the time the first stories appeared,” Kirby said on Monday. “Sadly, not everybody seems to take it as seriously as we do. … Clearly, there’s a source or sources out there that think it’s somehow beneficial to put this kind of information into the public stream. And it’s absolutely not.”

Kirby also rejected the idea that the White House or the Pentagon had walked back comments calling the early reports inaccurate.

“The fact that we came out a couple of days later and provided some clarifying information does not mean, and should not be taken as I’ve seen in some of the press reporting, as some kind of walk-back,” he said.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/gU0x4nF
via IFTTT

Read More

McCarthy tees off on Trump indictment amid conservative rebellion

Speaker Kevin McCarthy Monday afternoon welcomed his brief break from talking about House conservatives’ open rebellion — even if it was to talk about another indictment of Donald Trump.

Those are the two political headaches the California Republican is facing this week: figuring out the best approach to Trump’s legal fight and finding a compromise with a band of far-right rebels that has vowed to jam up the House floor until leaders agree to some not-quite-clear demands.

McCarthy seemed to have a more substantive answer to the former problem. He quickly defended Trump, who last week was indicted for mishandling classified documents, echoing Republicans’ assertions that indicting Trump amounted to a double standard in a 20-minute gaggle with reporters. But the speaker dodged when asked whether the former president was innocent, adding that he hasn’t spoken to Trump since the indictment.

“I believe President Trump has not been treated equally like everybody else in this process,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy promised that House Republicans will use their majority to investigate the investigators — a repeat of the conference’s strategy in responding to the Trump indictment brought by New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg earlier this year. He also didn’t rule out Special Counsel Jack Smith being called to testify before Congress, arguing that there was a “responsibility” to understand decisions made by the Justice Department and FBI.

“Why did [Smith] think President Trump should be treated differently than anybody else? I think the American public does need to know,” McCarthy said. Republicans have called foul on the FBI’s previous decision to not charge Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified documents, which they’ve argued was comparable to Trump’s transgressions.

McCarthy hinted at other investigative steps Republicans could take, casting fresh doubt on allowing the FBI to build a new headquarters — POLITICO previously reported that key Republicans are discussing blocking the funds.

The speaker had fewer answers when it came to an ongoing conservative rebellion, which kept leaders from passing legislation last week and remained unresolved Monday. When asked if he had the votes to revive that legislation, McCarthy said that leaders would “eventually.”

Already, it’s clear that House Republicans’ response will come from multiple corners of the conference as it plays a familiar role: Trump’s unofficial defense team. Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has already requested new details on last year’s FBI search of Mar-a-Lago for the classified records. McCarthy has also pointed to Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), who has jurisdiction over the National Archives. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) vowed on Monday that she would try to defund Smith.

The House Intelligence Committee has already talked behind closed doors with National Archives officials earlier this year. Though they largely sidestepped talking about the details of the Trump investigation, Archives officials did delve into how they realized records were missing.

In addition to the arguments about former Democratic presidential nominee Clinton, Republicans have also accused the FBI of a “double standard” between the investigation into Trump’s and Biden’s handling of classified information. Those two cases have key differences, as the search of Mar-a-Lago came after a months-long back-and-forth between Trump’s team and Archives and Justice Department officials.

McCarthy — asked about Trump storing classified documents in a bathroom, according to the Justice Department indictment — quipped back: “A bathroom door locks.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/J5t6eK9
via IFTTT

Read More

Californians: Have you asked Sens. Feinstein or Padilla for help recently? Send us your receipts.

Part of a senator’s job involves helping the people they represent cut through federal red tape to access services or solve problems with veterans benefits, expedited passports, Social Security checks and more.

POLITICO’s California team wants to know how well Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Alex Padilla are responding to residents’ requests and providing the help they need.

If you are a California resident who has reached out to Sen. Feinstein or Sen. Padilla to ask for casework assistance, we want to see emails or letters you’ve sent or received from the senators and their staff since 2022.

We also want to hear from anyone else who may have information on how casework assistance is handled in the senators’ offices, whether you’re a current or former staffer, a federal agency liaison who communicates with them or someone else.

Please fill out our brief survey below or at this link.

We won’t use your name or clearly identifiable details about your case without speaking to you and getting your permission. We may use anonymous data collected from this survey for our reporting.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/cCwgth1
via IFTTT

Read More

Maxine Waters, Elizabeth Warren clash over investment rules

Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Elizabeth Warren — long-time allies when it comes to cracking down on Wall Street — are finding themselves at odds over a GOP push to scale back investment guardrails.

At the heart of the rift is a series of Republican-led proposals that would make it easier for individual Americans to buy stakes in startups and other privately held businesses — an area of investment that’s less regulated than the shares trading on the New York Stock Exchange or Nasdaq.

Waters, a California Democrat, is using her lead role on the House Financial Services Committee to rally support for the measures, arguing that existing restrictions tied to wealth and income shut out otherwise-savvy investors from economic opportunity.

Her backing helped House Republicans pass the bills and send them to the Senate in recent days — despite an outcry from consumer advocates and opposition from progressives including Warren and fellow Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Ayanna Pressley. Eighteen Democrats — among them, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Katie Porter (D-Calif.) — broke with Waters to vote against one of the bills when it hit the House floor late last month.

“House Financial Services passed legislation to reduce the number of people who will be covered by basic consumer protection laws,” Warren said in an interview. “That's not good for investors, and ultimately, not good for markets.”

The conflict is exposing an internal rift on the left over the extent to which the government should dictate access to investment opportunities — similar, in some ways, to how cryptocurrency has scrambled progressives’ approach to financial regulation. The fight is poised to reveal how much sway consumer protection hardliners like Warren hold over the rest of their party when it comes to rules that impact how Americans save, speculate and build wealth.

“This was a little bit of opening the door to allow people — who can be tested, and who are smart, and who can handle this better than someone who's a millionaire — to have a chance,” Waters told POLITICO.

The fight is being triggered by three bills that House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is driving as part of a broader push to loosen Securities and Exchange Commission rules to boost capital raising for startups.

The legislation would seek to expand the number of Americans who qualify as so-called accredited investors — a category of individuals, as defined by the SEC, who can put their money into private-market investments that aren’t subject to the same transparency requirements as publicly traded companies.

The SEC’s current threshold to qualify as an accredited investor hinges in part on an individual’s economic status. They can meet it if they have a net worth of over $1 million or a $200,000 annual income. Investment professionals and corporate insiders can also qualify.

The bills Waters helped usher through the House would, among other things, enshrine the SEC’s current wealth-based cut-off, which investor watchdogs argue is too permissive as is. They would also allow more individuals to gain access to the investments after taking a test or meeting certain educational and professional criteria.

“I've always been a little bit uneasy about considering those who have more money” as those who “know better how to spend their money,” Waters said. “And of course, I've been concerned about those who don't have very much and may be destroying their life.”

Business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are lobbying for the changes on the grounds that they expand opportunities for investors to get in early on the next great startup.

“Getting capital to the businesses that need it shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” said Evan Williams, the executive director of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

But investor advocates including the Consumer Federation of America and AARP have pushed for tightening restrictions to help shield Americans from the next great startup disaster, like FTX or Theranos.

They argue that even the current net worth and income thresholds — which are not tied to inflation and haven’t been updated since the 1980s — fail to safeguard investors. The number of U.S. households that qualified as accredited investors went from 1.3 million in 1983 to 16 million in 2019, according to the SEC.

Healthy Markets Association CEO Tyler Gellasch, a former SEC official who now represents institutional investors, said the big winners of the proposals are private equity and venture capital funds, as well as the executives of the companies in which they invest.

Some House Democrats who ended up voting for the legislation voiced concerns when it was first brought up in committee. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said they were “voting with the Democratic lead.”

Rep. Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), who voted against the bill that would set up an accredited investor test, said the proposal appeared to be designed “in a manner that predetermines the certification outcome.”

“I find it concerning that this measure would not address disparities in access to information and gauge an individual’s ability to evaluate the value of those securities,” she said in a statement.

Now that the House has passed the bills, the organizations lobbying against the proposals are shifting their focus to convincing Senate Democrats to block them. While senators have yet to introduce companion legislation, there is a possibility that the proposals could be tacked on to another bill that moves through Congress, including potential must-pass legislation.

“It’s really frustrating,” said Micah Hauptman, a former SEC official who now serves as director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America. “Democrats say the right things about wanting to protect investors — and then they vote the wrong way.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/FgtLSpU
via IFTTT

Read More