(WASHINGTON) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday she rejects two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s five recommendations for the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol — Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio.
Banks and Jordan both voted to overturn the election results on Jan. 6 and Pelosi said their appointments could impact “the integrity of the investigation.”
“Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement. “I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation. I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members.”
. @SpeakerPelosi tells me she spoke with McCarthy about her decision to reject two of his picks to serve on the Jan. 6th commission.
I asked her why she made the decision. She told me “January 6th.” And left it at that. pic.twitter.com/hYUTu4UjGG
“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” she said.
“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday she rejects two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s five recommendations for the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol — Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio.
Banks and Jordan both voted to overturn the election results on Jan. 6 and Pelosi said their appointments could impact “the integrity of the investigation.”
“Monday evening, the Minority Leader recommended 5 Members to serve on the Select Committee,” Pelosi said in a statement. “I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation. I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members.”
. @SpeakerPelosi tells me she spoke with McCarthy about her decision to reject two of his picks to serve on the Jan. 6th commission.
I asked her why she made the decision. She told me “January 6th.” And left it at that. pic.twitter.com/hYUTu4UjGG
“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” she said.
“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi said.
McCarthy reacted to the news in a statement of his own, calling Pelosi’s decision to reject his selections “unprecedented.”
“Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility,” McCarthy said. He went on to accuse the Speaker of being “more interested in politics than seeking the truth.”
“Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees,” McCarthy concluded, “Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts.”
The House Select Committee was expected to hold its first hearing on Tuesday.
House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, on Tuesday signaled some of the lines of inquiry Republicans would try to advance — calling for an examination of “the whole array of political violence that led up to Jan. 6 and still has gone on after that” along with the security posture on Capitol Hill before the insurrection.
“There have been many questions raised about why there hasn’t been a higher National Guard presence,” Scalise said.
As to how Republicans would respond to Democrats calling for GOP members to testify under oath about Jan. 6, Scalise said he would “let members of the committee discuss that and debate that.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday rejected two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s recommendations for the select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol, McCarthy said he would pull all his Republican nominees unless she reverses course.
Pelosi rejected two of McCarthy’s recommendations — Reps. Jim Banks of Indiana and Jim Jordan of Ohio, a staunch defender of former President Donald Trump.
Banks and Jordan both voted to overturn the election results on Jan. 6 and Pelosi said their appointments could impact “the integrity of the investigation.”
“I have spoken with him this morning about the objections raised about Representatives Jim Banks and Jim Jordan and the impact their appointments may have on the integrity of the investigation,” she said in a statement. “I also informed him that I was prepared to appoint Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls, and requested that he recommend two other Members.
“With respect for the integrity of the investigation, with an insistence on the truth and with concern about statements made and actions taken by these Members, I must reject the recommendations of Representatives Banks and Jordan to the Select Committee,” she said.
“The unprecedented nature of January 6th demands this unprecedented decision,” Pelosi added.
. @SpeakerPelosi tells me she spoke with McCarthy about her decision to reject two of his picks to serve on the Jan. 6th commission.
I asked her why she made the decision. She told me “January 6th.” And left it at that. pic.twitter.com/hYUTu4UjGG
McCarthy shot back at a news conference on Wednesday, saying Pelosi had created “a sham process.”
“House Democrats must answer this question,” he said. “Why are you allowing a lame-duck speaker to destroy this institution? This is the people’s house, not Pelosi’s House.”
He said unless Pelosi changes her mind and seats all five nominees, “we will not participate.” But, he said, Republicans will run their own investigation to answer why the Capitol was “ill-prepared” for the riot — something he and Republicans have blamed Pelosi for.
“Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the unprecedented step of denying the minority party’s picks for the Select Committee on January 6,” he said in an earlier statement. “This represents an egregious abuse of power and will irreparably damage this institution. Denying the voices of members who have served in the military and law enforcement, as well as leaders of standing committees, has made it undeniable that this panel has lost all legitimacy and credibility and shows the Speaker is more interested in playing politics than seeking the truth,” it read in part.
The House Select Committee was expected to hold its first hearing on Tuesday.
House GOP Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., on Tuesday signaled some of the lines of inquiry Republicans would try to advance — calling for an examination of “the whole array of political violence that led up to Jan. 6 and still has gone on after that” along with the security posture on Capitol Hill before the insurrection.
“There have been many questions raised about why there hasn’t been a higher National Guard presence,” Scalise said, hitting on a point McCarthy drove home on Wednesday.
As to how Republicans would respond to Democrats calling for GOP members to testify under oath about Jan. 6, Scalise said he would “let members of the committee discuss that and debate that.”
Asked at his press conference if he was still prepared to testify about his phone call with Trump during the riot, McCarthy said his phone call is “out there.”
“The question is, you make a phone call after people are in the Capitol to advise the president of what’s going on, doesn’t get to the answer of why were we ill-prepared,” he said. “That’s really playing politics, and it really shows if that’s the issue that they want to go to, before they want to drive, we don’t get all the answers.”
President Joe Biden did not answer shouted questions on the Jan. 6 commission developments while departing the White House Wednesday, but the White House issued a statement emphasizing that Biden stands behind Pelosi’s decision to reject two of the Republican lawmakers.
“The President has made clear that the shameful events of January 6th deserve a full, independent, and transparent investigation to ensure something like that never happens again, and he has full confidence in the Speaker’s ability to lead that work,” White House spokesperson Michael Gwin said in a statement.
(WASHINGTON) — As the Senate barrels toward a key test vote Wednesday on a bipartisan infrastructure deal, some Senate Republicans involved in trying to nail down the deal are pleading with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to delay the vote until next week.
Key Republican negotiators in the bipartisan group of senators who have been trying to work out the deal say they believe they can firm up their proposal by Monday. The group huddled over Mexican food and wine behind closed doors for over two hours late Tuesday night, but left without squaring all of their differences on how to pay for the $1.2 trillion package.
Without a firmed-up agreement, Republican negotiators left the Capitol Tuesday saying they do not believe a single Republican will vote “yes” to start debate on any measure Wednesday.
Republican negotiators advocated that Schumer delay the vote until Monday to buy more time for the bipartisan group to finish its work. Schumer, the Republicans say, is well-aware of their position that waiting until next week to hold a vote would heighten the chances of success.
Schumer had set the high-stakes vote to try to force progress on a top priority for President Joe Biden, but he needs the Republicans to get past the 60-vote threshold to advance legislation.
“I don’t think any Republican votes yes tomorrow. I don’t think we should, because we’re not ready,” the senior lawmaker said looking ahead to Wednesday’s vote.
Instead, the GOP negotiators debated sending a letter to Schumer saying that Republicans, who have been warning they won’t vote on advancing a bill that’s not yet written, are prepared to support starting debate on Monday, the senior lawmaker said.
The group, which has been working around the clock, along with White House officials, is “close” to a deal on how to pay for roads, bridges and other “traditional infrastructure,” according to numerous members involved. They were meeting again Tuesday afternoon — joined by senior Biden aides – to try to finalize a bill.
The White House said it continued to support Schumer’s tactics.
But the bipartisan group of lawmakers won’t get a final agreement by Wednesday, according to multiple negotiators. Negotiators said Tuesday that there are about six remaining issues with the bipartisan bill, the thorniest of which is how to structure spending on public transit systems.
At the same time, the senior lawmaker expects the legislation to be finalized by Monday, and that includes the nonpartisan analyses by various agencies breaking down all of the financing options, how much revenue would be produced, and a final price tag.
Republicans, in particular, will be looking to show that the $579 billion in new spending is fully paid for.
As of Tuesday afternoon, it didn’t appear as if Schumer would delay the vote, but he could minimize the impact, should it be headed for failure.
If it is, Schumer could switch his vote to the losing side at the last minute, enabling him as majority leader, under Senate rules, to call up the vote again for reconsideration.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday pointed to Schumer’s option to bring up the bill again in a few days, after the bipartisan group has had time to complete its work.
“No time is lost by adhering to a very simple principle, we are not going to the bill until we know what the bill is.
He could do so on Monday, when GOP members of the negotiating group say they’ll be ready to go.
Might a failed vote Wednesday poison the well for GOP negotiators?
No, said the senior lawmaker close to the talks, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., a member of the negotiating group.
The Wednesday vote is to start debate on a shell bill because there is no final bill from the negotiators. It would serve as a placeholder should negotiators strike a final deal.
The measure is separate from a much larger bill Biden and Democrats are pushing that would spend $3.5 trillion on so-called “human infrastructure” such as child care.
Democrats plan to push that through the Senate with no Republican votes, using a budget tool called “reconciliation.”
(WASHINGTON) — When President Joe Biden was sworn in six months ago, he inherited several major challenges, including a global pandemic and subsequent economic disruption, a social and racial reckoning across America, and a fractured Washington, reeling from the divisions of the Trump era.
On the campaign trail, Biden promised to bring bipartisanship back to the federal government, calling for unity in order to stem the effects of the coronavirus, rebuild the economy and foster equity and inclusion for all Americans.
“Since taking office, the president has acted to get America back on track by addressing the crises facing this nation, vaccinating America to beat the pandemic, delivering much needed help to American families, making transformative investments to rescue and rebuild our economy, and fundamentally showing that government can deliver for the American people,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday, marking the anniversary.
While Biden has presided over a growing economy and a retreating pandemic, there is much he hasn’t been able to accomplish, as Washington remains deadlocked without more bipartisan support from Congress for his initiatives– somethings Biden acknowledged during only the second Cabinet meeting of his administration.
“There’s much more to be done and so much more to do. Tackling voting rights, which is an existential threat to democracy right now, the things that are being passed are just beyond the pale. The vice president has been working hard on this issue and going to continue to, we all are, but there’s much more to do. We have to tackle the immigration problem, which we’re working really hard to get done in a humane and serious way. Police reform and crime,” Biden said Tuesday.
Six months into his administration, here’s a look at how successful Biden has been in pursuing some of his major initiatives.
The pandemic and the economy
President Biden oversaw an unprecedented vaccination effort to end the COVID-19 pandemic, distributing more than 200 million shots of the vaccine within his first 100 days in office.
COVID-19 cases and death rates plunged to a record low since the start of the pandemic as the effects of vaccination took hold.
Still, the Biden administration has struggled with vaccine hesitancy, and failed to hit a self-imposed goal to distribute at least one shot to 70% of all adults over 18 by July 4. As of Biden’s 6-month mark, 68.3% of adults over 18 have at least one shot, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
“If you’re fully vaccinated, you have a high degree of protection against severe illness, hospitalization and death. If you’re unvaccinated, you are not protected. So please, please get vaccinated. Get vaccinated now,” Biden said Monday, acknowledging that cases and death rates are once again rising in the U.S.
Biden was successful in passing his economic relief package, dubbed the American Rescue Plan. The $1.9 trillion spending package delivered stimulus checks, small business aid, funding for COVID-19 testing and vaccinations, and state and local government relief.
But he failed to deliver on one major campaign promise: to secure bipartisan support for his initiatives. The COVID-19 relief package passed in Congress without a single Republican vote.
“For all of those predictions of doom and gloom six months in, here is where we stand. Record growth. Record job creation. Workers getting hard-earned breaks. Look, we brought this economy back from the brink and we’ve designed our strategy not only to provide for a temporary boost, but to lay the foundation for a long-term boom that brings everyone along,” Biden said Monday in remarks touting his economic achievement and pushing a bipartisan measure to spend $1.2 trillion improving roads, bridges and other “traditional infrastructure.”
But the fate of that is unclear in the both the Senate and House where Democrats have only a narrow majority — as is the future of legislation that would spend $3.5 trillion on “human infrastructure” such as child care that Democrats hope to push through with no Republican votes.
In those same remarks, Biden had to address inflation concerns, as rising prices across the U.S. threaten the economic optimism of reopening after the pandemic.
Immigration
President Biden has struggled to stem the flow of migrants crossing the southern border of the U.S. In June, Customs and Border Patrol apprehended a ten-year record number of migrants.
Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to address the root causes of migration, and Harris has traveled to Guatemala and Mexico in her efforts to encourage potential migrants to stay in their home countries and apply for asylum legally. But with corruption, drug-related violence and extreme weather plaguing many Central and South American countries, her efforts, including offering increased aid to those countries, have not led to a significant shift in migration patterns, as illustrated by the June CBP numbers.
“No matter how much effort we put in on curbing violence, providing disaster relief, on tackling food insecurity — on any of it — we will not make significant progress if corruption in the region persists,” Harris said on May 4.
Biden was successful in overturning many of President Trump’s strict immigration policies. He ended Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” that prevented people from traveling from several Muslim-majority countries to the United States. Biden also returned deportation priorities to the status quo in the Obama administration, which focused on people who committed crimes other than entering the country illegally.
While Biden has proposed a comprehensive immigration reform plan to Congress, there has been little movement to advance it. In July, a federal judge ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which shielded young people brought illegally to the U.S. as children from deportation, is unlawful, and disallowed new applications to the program. The case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, the defeat in the courts ramps up pressure on Biden and Congress to achieve a legislative fix for Dreamers.
“Only Congress can ensure a permanent solution by granting a path to citizenship for Dreamers that will provide the certainty and stability that these young people need and deserve,” Biden said in a statement Saturday. “It is my fervent hope that through reconciliation or other means, Congress will finally provide security to all Dreamers, who have lived too long in fear.”
Policing and Guns
One policy area proving elusive for Biden is police reform and gun control, as legislation on the issues have stalled in Congress.
The Biden White House has frequently highlighted its support for the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and called for it to be passed by the first anniversary of Floyd’s death in May. While the deadline was missed, they have encouraged bipartisan negotiations on Capitol Hill that have yielded little beyond a “framework” and discussions continue.
The administration also decided to forgo Biden’s campaign promise to create a commission within his first 100 days to study the issue of policing, with senior adviser Susan Rice saying the administration decided it would not be the “most effective way” to deliver on its top priority of getting the Floyd bill passed “based on close, respectful consultation with partners in the civil rights community.”
The president has not seen gun control legislation come to his desk from Capitol Hill, even after the House passed a measure that would address loopholes in the background check system. But Biden has taken unilateral action on the issue after several mass shootings during his short tenure in office.
Biden signed six gun-related executive actions on April 8, including directing the Justice Department to issue a proposed rule to regulate the sale of so-called “ghost guns” within 30 days, calling for investments in evidence-based community violence intervention and asking the Justice Department to publish model “red flag” legislation for states within 60 days.
He took additional action in June, allowing communities to spend some of the funding they received as part of his $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill funding to combat gun crime, such as investing in summer jobs programs for youths; hiring more police officers and court personnel; spending on gun-violence enforcement; and paying for more nurses, counselors and social workers.
Other measures include establishing a “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers who break the law; embedding federal law enforcement officials with local police departments; and hiring more formerly incarcerated people for jobs in the federal government, according to the White House.
Even with his presidential actions, Biden is limited in what he can accomplish on his own, and has fallen short of some of his biggest campaign pledges on the issue, like stopping the importation of assault weapons, and creating a national buyback program for the U.S.
(NEW YORK) — Tom Barrack, a longtime friend of Donald Trump’s who chaired the committee that raised more than $100 million for his inauguration, has been charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government and obstruction of justice.
Federal prosecutors in Brooklyn said Tuesday that in 2016, Barrack illegally sought to use his influence with the new president on behalf of the United Arab Emirates.
In May 2016, according to the indictment, Barrack “took steps to establish himself as the key communications channel for the United Arab Emirates” to the Trump campaign and, that same month, gave a co-defendant a draft copy of an energy speech then-candidate Trump was preparing to deliver. The co-defendant then sent it to a UAE official and solicited feedback.
“Congrats on the great job today,” court records quoted the Emirati official saying in an email to Barrack after Trump delivered the speech. “Everybody here are happy with the results.”
A spokesman for Barrack, 74, told ABC News that “Mr. Barrack has made himself voluntarily available to investigators from the outset. He is not guilty and will be pleading not guilty.”
Barrack was due to make an initial court appearance in California, where he was arrested Tuesday morning.
Prosecutors are seeking to detain Barrack while he awaits trial, calling him “an extremely wealthy and powerful individual with substantial ties to Lebanon, the UAE, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” who “poses a serious flight risk.”
Between May 2016 and October 2017, Barrack “repeatedly promoted the United Arab Emirates and its foreign policy interests during media appearances” after soliciting direction from his co-defendant and UAE officials, the indictment said.
“The defendant promoted UAE-favored policy positions in the Campaign, in the Administration, and through the media, at times using specific language provided by UAE leadership,” assistant U.S. Attorney Jacquelyn Kasulis wrote in the court filing. “The defendant never registered as an agent of the UAE, as public disclosure of his agreement to act at the direction of senior UAE officials would have diminished, if not eliminated, the access and influence that the UAE sought and valued.”
The allegations involving Barrack came to light as part of a House Oversight Committee investigation, ABC News reported in July 2019.
(WASHINGTON) — The 11 Republicans in the group of senators trying to work out a bipartisan infrastructure deal are sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer saying no GOP member will vote “yes” to start debate on any measure Wednesday, according to a senior lawmaker close to the continuing talks over how to pay for the $1.2 trillion package.
Schumer had set the high-stakes vote to try to force progress on a top priority for President Joe Biden, but he needs the Republicans to get past the 60-vote threshold to advance legislation.
“I don’t think any Republican votes yes tomorrow. I don’t think we should, because we’re not ready,” the senior lawmaker said. “My hope is, by the end of the day, we should know a lot more.”
Instead, the GOP negotiators’ letter to Schumer will say that Republicans, who have been warning they won’t vote on advancing a bill that’s not yet written, are prepared to support starting debate on Monday, the senior lawmaker said.
The group, which has been working around the clock, along with White House officials, is “close,” to a deal on how to pay for roads, bridges and other “traditional infrastructure,” according to numerous members involved. They were meeting again Tuesday afternoon — joined by senior Biden aides – to try to finalize a bill.
The White House said it continued to support Schumer’s tactics.
But the bipartisan group of lawmakers won’t get a final agreement by Wednesday, according to multiple negotiators.
At the same time, the senior lawmaker expects the legislation to be finalized by Monday, and that includes the nonpartisan analyses by various agencies breaking down all of the financing options, how much revenue would be produced, and a final price tag.
Republicans, in particular, will be looking to show that the $579 billion in new spending is fully paid for.
As of Tuesday afternoon, it didn’t appear as if Schumer would delay the vote, but he could minimize the impact, should it be headed for failure.
If it is, Schumer could switch his vote to the losing side at the last minute, enabling him as majority leader, under Senate rules, to call up the vote again for reconsideration.
He could do so on Monday, when GOP members of the negotiating group say they’ll be ready to go.
Might a failed vote Wednesday poison the well for GOP negotiators?
No, says the senior lawmaker close to the talks, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, a member of the negotiating group.
The Wednesday vote is to start debate on a shell bill because there is no final bill from the negotiators. It would serve as a placeholder should negotiators strike a final deal.
The measure is separate from a much larger bill Biden and Democrats are pushing that would spend $3.5 trillion on so-called “human infrastructure” such as child care.
Democrats plan to push that through the Senate with no Republican votes, using a budget tool called “reconciliation.”
(WASHINGTON) — A fully vaccinated spokesperson for House Speaker Pelosi tested positive for COVID-19 this week after interacting with several infected Texas Democratic state legislators who traveled to the capital.
“Yesterday, a fully-vaccinated senior spokesperson in the Speaker’s Press Office tested positive for COVID after contact with members of the Texas state legislature last week. This individual has had no contact with the speaker since exposure,” Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told ABC News.
“The entire press office is working remotely today with the exception of individuals who have had no exposure to the individual or have had a recent negative test. Our office will continue to follow the guidance of the Office of Attending Physician closely,” he added.
A fully vaccinated White House official also tested positive for COVID-19 off-campus, the White House disclosed Tuesday. News of both “breakthrough” infections was first reported by Axios.
“I will say that we — according to an agreement we made during the transition to be transparent and make information available, we committed that we would release information proactively if it is commissioned officers. We continue to abide by that commitment,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.
At least six of the more than 50 Texas Democrats who fled Austin last week to block dual Republican-backed bills that would revise the state’s voting and election laws in ways voting rights advocates say would make it harder for Texans to cast a ballot have since tested positive for COVID-19 in Washington. The infections prompted a flurry of contact tracing on Capitol Hill and at the White House, where they have met with legislators and senior administration officials, including Vice President Kamala Harris.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday suggested that House leaders could discuss “whether going back to [masks on Capitol Hill] work,” but added that the Office of the Attending Physician, who addresses the medical needs of Congress, “has not suggested” a return to the practice.
In a memo distributed to House offices on Tuesday, Attending Physician Brian Monahan did not announce any changes to House masking policy.
“Vaccinated individuals seeking to further reduce their risk of disease, or further reduce potential risk of transmitting disease to vulnerable household members, may consider additional protective actions such as wearing a well-fitted, medical-grade filtration mask when they are in a crowded or interior location,” he wrote. “Individuals have the personal discretion to wear a mask and future developments in the coronavirus Delta variant local threat may require the resumption of mask wear for all as now seen in several counties in the United States.”
(NEW YORK) — GOP Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday stepped up his months-long fight with the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, suggesting he lied to Congress about whether the National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and triggering an angry shouting match.
At a Senate Health Committee hearing meant to update lawmakers on the country’s COVID-19 response, the Kentucky Republican began by asking Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, if he’s aware that it’s a crime to lie to Congress.
“On May 11, you stated that NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Paul said. He claimed that gain-of-function research — which could, in theory, enhance the transmissibility of a virus — was performed in the lab and referred to an academic paper by a Chinese scientist, which he then asked to be entered into the record and for a copy to be given to Fauci.
“Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed at the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?” Paul said, repeating his unsupported accusation.
Fauci flatly rejected Paul’s suggestion.
“Sen. Paul, I have never lied before the Congress. And I do not retract that statement,” he said.
Paul suggested Fauci and the NIH could be partly responsible for the pandemic and the deaths of 4 million people worldwide.
The virology expert explained that the paper Paul referenced does not represent gain-of-function research, and when Paul interrupted, the shouting match ensued.
“Let me finish!” Fauci said, when Paul tried to interject. “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you’re talking about.”
Continuing their ongoing feud, the two argued over the definition of gain-of-function. NIH Director Francis Collins, in a statement earlier this year, warning of misinformation, said, “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
But Paul would not be swayed.
“You’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around them from a pandemic,” Paul said.
At that point, Senate Health Committee Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Paul to let Fauci finish — though the senator continued to interrupt his witness.
“I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator,” Fauci said. “If you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments, that were given in the annual reports, that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible–“
Paul interjected, “You are obviously obfuscating the truth,” to which Fauci replied, “I’m not obfuscating the truth — you are.”
“You are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals. I totally resent that,” Fauci said.
Paul interrupted, “It could have been.”
“If there is any lying here, senator, it is you,” Fauci shot back, pointing his finger at Paul.
With Paul’s time expired, the lawmaker up next, Sen. Tina Smith, D-N.M., gave Fauci the chance to “counteract these attacks on your integrity that we’ve all just witnessed.”
“I don’t think I have anything further to say,” Fauci said. “This is a pattern that Sen. Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings based on no reality. He keeps talking about gain-of-function. This has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain-of-function definition.
“I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed,” Fauci said.
(WASHINGTON) — A tri-partisan group of senators on Tuesday introduced legislation designed to claw back national security powers, delineated in the Constitution, from the executive branch that the Senate trio says have been flowing away from Congress after decades of inaction by lawmakers.
“The founders envisioned a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government on national security matters. But over time, Congress has acquiesced to the growing, often unchecked power of the executive to determine the outline of America’s footprint in the world. More than ever before, presidents are sending men and women into battle without public debate, and making major policy decisions, like massive arms sales, without congressional input,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee a bill cosponsor, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The three-pronged National Security Powers Act would place Congress in a more proactive role of having to affirm executive action on more controversial arms sales — particularly of lethal weapons, including air to ground munitions, tanks, and armored vehicles, as opposed to the current method requiring lawmakers to reject a sale with a veto-proof majority; would replace the 1973 War Powers Act with new policy that would require congressional authorization of military operations by a President after just 20 days instead of the current 60; and require that Congress approve a national emergency declaration after 30 days from presidential enactment.
“The president can declare a national emergency and act on that for a 30-day period, but after that, if Congress chooses not to enact a law to approve of the move, (called a joint resolution of approval) — that ability for the president would expire after 30 days,” according to a senior Senate GOP aide briefing reporters on the proposal.
President Donald Trump, in a highly controversial move in 2019, declared a national security emergency on the southern border to build his wall in that space. There was bipartisan support at the time to stop him but not a veto-proof majority. The Murphy-Sanders-Lee legislation would “flip the script” and put Congress in a position to more easily stop such executive action.
What senators also discovered at the time was that some 30 national emergency declarations were still in effect going back decades. The proposed legislation would sunset those declarations without explicit Congressional approval, putting a five-year limit on future moves.
The tri-partisan proposal comes as Washington is moving to rescind a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved ahead of the Iraq war. There is also growing support to rework or possibly end the 2001 AUMF that led to America’s longest war in Afghanistan where U.S. troops have just been sent home. Under the newly-introduced legislation, those AUMF’s would expire, and all future AUMF’s would require an expiration date.
The new legislation, which is sure to spark heated debate among hawks and those who doubt Congress’ authority to rein in executive powers where national security is concerned — despite the Constitution’s delineation that Congress has the sole power to declare war — would more strictly-define “hostilities” as any that require U.S. troops, as opposed to the current unwritten rule that basically requires U.S. service member boots on the ground.
“Presidents of both parties have usurped Congress’s prerogative to determine if, when, and how we go to war. Now America’s global standing, treasure, and brave service members are being lost in conflicts the people’s legislators never debated. In areas where the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, Congress is ignored. The National Security Powers Act will change that and return these checks and balances to our government,” Lee said.
It is unclear where support lies for the proposal in Congress, particularly among leadership, and Senate aides close to the matter say that there was no consultation with the White House or Administration officials.
Still, the group says the time to act is now.
“Before it’s too late, Congress needs to reclaim its rightful role as co-equal branch on matters of war and national security. The bipartisan National Security Powers Act will make sure that there is a full, open and public debate on all major national security decisions, such as war making, arms sales and emergency declarations,” Murphy said.
