(WASHINGTON) — House Democratic leadership has been working behind the scenes on a long shot plan that could allow their party to go around Speaker Kevin McCarthy and force a vote to raise the debt limit, even if an agreement isn’t reached with the Republican majority.

The strategy centers on what’s called a discharge petition — a rare and complicated procedural tool that allows members of the House to move a bill out of a committee and bring it to the floor without the support of the majority party leadership.

The petition requires 218 signatures to force a vote. That would mean Democrats would need to get the support of at least five Republicans.

Even after those signatures are secured, the process to get to a final vote is cumbersome. It involves waiting out the clock and a variety of tricky procedural moves. For example: Once lawmakers have enough signatures, they still must wait seven legislative days.

They also have to wait for a “discharge day,” which only comes around on the second and fourth Monday of each month.

Even so, Democrats are laying the groundwork for such a petition.

In a letter to House Democrats on Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrote that California Rep. Mark DeSaulnier introduced legislation back in January that “could be used as a vehicle to avert the Republican-manufactured default crisis.”

And though the House is in recess this week, Democrats just filed a special rule to take the next step in the process for using a discharge petition.

“The filing of a debt ceiling measure to be brought up on the discharge calendar preserves an important option,” Jeffries wrote. “It is now time for MAGA Republicans to act in a bipartisan manner to pay America’s bills without extreme conditions. We will be in direct contact next week upon our return to Washington in connection with the discharge effort.”

The party, Jeffries wrote, is “working to make sure we have all options at our disposal to avoid a default.”

That plan will unfold in the background of closely watched maneuvering between the White House and House Republicans, who each contend the other side bears responsibility for addressing the $31.4 trillion debt ceiling.

Speaker McCarthy is set to meet with Biden at the White House next week along with other congressional leaders, as Biden insists the debt ceiling be raised without conditions separate from negotiations over spending and the government budget.

The U.S. hit its current debt limit in January, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a letter to Congress on Monday that the government could begin defaulting on some of its bills as early as June 1 unless the limit is raised.

Over the years, lawmakers of both parties have regularly had to raise or temporarily suspend the debt ceiling, which allows the government to borrow money as needed to pay for existing programs and appropriations — not new spending.

Yellen has said that in the event of a default, Social Security and military family payments could be affected. Financial experts have also warned of broader economic damage.

In Israel on Monday, where he is leading a congressional delegation, McCarthy said he was ready to negotiate but that “we will not pass a debt ceiling that just raises it without doing something on our debt.”

“Defaulting on our debt is not an option, but neither is a future of higher taxes, higher interest rates, more dependency on China and an economy that doesn’t work for working Americans,” McCarthy said in a speech last month.

At a briefing on Monday, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the administration views the debt and the budget separately and that Congress had a “constitutional duty” to address the debt ceiling.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Supreme Court ethics and questions surrounding the conduct of Justice Clarence Thomas were on full display Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

The panel heard from a range of legal experts on whether Congress has the authority to require the high court to adopt an enforaceable code of conduct. Democrats have pushed for such legislation following reports scrutinizing Justice Thomas’ nondisclosure of private luxury travel and accommodations from a wealthy Republican donor.

“How low can the court go?” chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked as the hearing kicked off.

“We wouldn’t tolerate this from a city council member or an alderman,” Durbin added. “It falls short of ethical standards we expect of any public servant in America. And yet the Supreme Court won’t even acknowledge it’s a problem.”

Meanwhile, Republicans made it clear they would push back on any congressional attempt to impose rules on the court and accused Democrats of “political theater.”

All nine current members of the Supreme Court, including the three liberal justices, have suggested they oppose legislative proposals for independent oversight and mandatory compliance with ethics rules. Last week they signed a rare public statement on “ethics principles and practices” reaffirming voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but resisting outside regulation.

As the hearing was underway, protesters gathered outside the U.S. Capitol to call for ethical reforms to the nation’s highest court. The Supreme Court is the only branch of government that operates without a formal enforceable code of conduct.

Here are some key takeaways:

Senators agree on need for transparency but disagree on path forward

There was bipartisan agreement that the Supreme Court needs to be more forthcoming about its conduct and the guidelines justices abide by.

“I, too, have expressed a desire for the court to be more transparent, to have rules the public can relate to,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, the ranking member of the committee, said in his opening statement.

The panel was divided, however, on the role of Congress in this debate. Republicans argued Congress has no authority to impose enforceable ethics rules and outside enforcement.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy said such a step would be “unconstitutional and unnecessary.”

Legal experts, too, were split on the matter in Tuesday’s hearing. Though J. Michael Luttig, a former federal appellate judge popular among conservatives, said in written testimony that while the Supreme Court should enforce such rules itself, Congress “indisputably has the power” to enact laws imposing ethical standards on the court’s non-judicial activities.

Republicans defend Thomas, accuse Democrats of ‘selective outrage’

Graham accused Democrats of “cherry-picking” instances of travel and gifts to conservative justices to undermine confidence in the court. He listed all-expense-paid trips and monetary awards given to various justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, over the years.

“This is an unseemly effort by the Democratic left to destroy the legitimacy of the Roberts court,” Graham said. “There’s a very selective outrage here.”

Other GOP members echoed that argument, claiming this ethics argument is an attempt by Democrats to push back against the court in light of recent decisions by the conservative majority.

“Today’s hearing is just one political theater to delegitimize our judicial system, particularly the Supreme Court,” said Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley.

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz evoked comments made by Thomas during his bitter confirmation hearings in 1991. Cornyn played footage of Thomas, who was facing harassment accusations by Anita Hill, famously calling the proceedings a “high-tech lynching.”

“It is sad to see 30 years later this committee is again engaged in the same despicable tactics,” Cruz said, accusing Democrats of racist attacks.

Democrats want independent panel of retired judges to police the court

“The justices have been playing out of bounds,” declared Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who has sponsored legislation to require adoption of an ethics code, mandate terms for when a justice must recuse from a case, and tighten financial disclosure requirements for members of the high court.

Retired federal judge Jeremy Fogel, who once sat on the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure, which facilitates compliance with federal ethics law across the judiciary, testified that the “absence of a formal structure [of ethics] is untenable and that a lack of clarity feeds the perception” of a partisan Supreme Court. He recommended an independent panel of retired judges to confidentially work with the justices to ensure compliance with their guidelines.

Roberts declines to appear, responds in writing

Absent from the hearing was Chief Justice John Roberts, despite Durbin’s invitation to Roberts — or any other justice — to appear before the committee.

Roberts instead briefly responded to questions in a written statement, in which he highlighted the role of the Judicial Conference’s “Committee on Financial Disclosure” in helping the justices stay in compliance with the law.

That body, he said, reaches out to justices when information surfaces about incomplete or inaccurate filings. To his knowledge, there’s never been an instance of a justice and the committee failing to resolve an issue — and a penalty has never been imposed on a justice.

Durbin swiped at Roberts for not appearing on Tuesday, stating, “The reality is that sitting justices have testified at 92 congressional hearings since 1960.”

“Answering legitimate questions from the people’s representatives is one of the checks and balances that helps preserve the separation of powers,” he said.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday gave his first public response to an IRS supervisor-turned-whistleblower who claimed to have information for Congress about potential mishandling of the yearslong federal investigation into President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Among the allegations laid out in a letter to lawmakers last month was that the whistleblower would contradict Garland’s testimony on Capitol Hill that the Hunter Biden probe has remained free from any improper political interference, sources have told ABC News.

In an unrelated news conference Tuesday morning, Garland was asked whether he stood by those previous statements.

“Yes, it’s still the case I stand by my testimony, and I refer you to the U.S. attorney for the District of Delaware who is in charge of this case and capable of making any decisions that he feels are appropriate,” Garland said.

Federal authorities with the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware, led by U.S. Attorney David Weiss, a Trump appointee, have been investigating the younger Biden since 2018, ABC News previously reported.

Various news outlets have reported for months that prosecutors were nearing a conclusion, but no charges have yet been filed.

The investigation spilled into public view in December 2020, shortly after Joe Biden secured the presidency, when Hunter Biden confirmed the probe into his “tax affairs.” Prosecutors have examined whether he paid adequate taxes on millions of dollars of his income, including money he made from multiple overseas business ventures.

Prosecutors have also explored allegations that Hunter Biden lied about his drug use on a gun application form in 2018, despite later acknowledging that he was addicted to drugs around that time.

ABC News previously reported the younger Biden borrowed $2 million from his lawyer and confidant Kevin Morris to pay the IRS for back taxes, penalties and liens that he owed.

The president’s younger son said in an interview with CBS in 2021 that he was “fully cooperating, and I’m fully confident that at the end of the day it’s all gonna be fine.”

In April, in a letter to lawmakers obtained by ABC News, a lawyer for the IRS whistleblower said his client is an criminal supervisory special agent “who has been overseeing the ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject since early 2020 and would like to make protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”

The letter did not name Hunter Biden specifically, but lawmakers have been made aware he is the “high profile, controversial” subject that the lawyer is referring to. In addition, while the letter referred to preferential treatment that Hunter Biden allegedly received, there were no specific examples provided to support the accusations.

Leading Republicans, who have campaigned in part on promises of investigating the Biden family, seized on the whistleblower letter, reacting with alarm.

“It’s deeply concerning that the Biden Administration may be obstructing justice by blocking efforts to charge Hunter Biden for tax violations,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer said in a statement.

In response to the IRS agent’s letter, Chris Clark, an attorney for Hunter Biden, said, “It appears this IRS agent has committed a crime” by disclosing information about his client.

“It is a felony for an IRS agent to improperly disclose information about an ongoing tax investigation,” Clark said in a statement. “The IRS has incredible power, and abusing that power by targeting, embarrassing, or disclosing information about a private citizen’s tax matters undermines Americans’ faith in the federal government.”

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to weigh in on the matter in April, stressing that the president was choosing to keep his distance: “I’ll leave it to the Department of Justice to make their decision to move forward with this particular case. We’re just not going to comment from here.”

A spokesperson for the White House counsel insisted the administration had not gotten involved.

“President Biden has made clear that this matter would be handled independently by the Justice Department, under the leadership of a U.S. Attorney appointed by former President Trump, free from any political interference by the White House,” Ian Sams said in an April statement. “He has upheld that commitment.”

ABC News’ Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.