Army Secretary Mark Esper appears to be on a glide path to confirmation as Pentagon chief after Tuesday’s hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The Defense secretary nominee briefly tangled with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWarren embraces Thiel label: ‘Good’ Trump says administration will ‘take a look’ after Thiel raises concerns about Google, China Thiel calls Warren the most ‘dangerous’ Democratic candidate MORE (D-Mass.) over his previous job as a lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon. But the debate marked the only fireworks at an otherwise uncontentious hearing.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeThis week: House Democrats voting to hold Barr, Ross in contempt House and Senate head for showdown on must-pass defense bill Overnight Defense: House approves 3 billion defense bill | Liberal sweeteners draw progressive votes | Bill includes measure blocking Trump from military action on Iran MORE (R-Okla.) said after the hearing that he expects the panel to vote on Esper’s nomination as soon as Thursday. That would likely be followed by a procedural vote on the Senate floor as early as Monday evening, Inhofe added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most senators are eager to confirm the West Point graduate to fill the Pentagon’s top civilian job on a permanent basis after going through a record-long period without a confirmed Defense secretary.

The post has been held by acting secretaries since the beginning of the year, after former Defense Secretary James MattisJames Norman MattisEsper sidesteps question on whether he aligns more with Mattis or Trump The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by JUUL Labs – House to vote to condemn Trump tweet Five things to watch for at Defense nominee’s confirmation hearing MORE resigned amid policy disputes with President TrumpDonald John TrumpEsper sidesteps question on whether he aligns more with Mattis or Trump Warren embraces Thiel label: ‘Good’ As tensions escalate, US must intensify pressure on Iran and the IAEA MORE.

“Most of us were very discouraged by the resignation of Secretary Mattis, and what we’ve hoped for is a successor who could show the same level of candor and principle and a willingness to remain independent even in the most challenging circumstances,” committee member Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineAcosta defends Epstein deal, bucking calls for resignation Republican lawmakers on why they haven’t read Mueller report: ‘Tedious’ and ‘what’s the point?’ Schumer calls on Acosta to step down over Epstein MORE (D-Va.) said Tuesday in his opening remarks. “I believe that Dr. Esper has those traits and would encourage all of my colleagues to support this nomination.”

Esper, who in 2017 was confirmed as Army secretary by the Senate in an 89-6 vote, scored points Tuesday by pledging to focus on filling Defense Department vacancies quickly.

“There is a staggering number of senior-level civilian vacancies throughout the department,” said ranking member Jack ReedJohn (Jack) Francis ReedPentagon chief nominee: ‘We need to get back on the diplomatic channel’ with Iran Overnight Defense: House approves 3 billion defense bill | Liberal sweeteners draw progressive votes | Bill includes measure blocking Trump from military action on Iran Senators urge Trump to sanction Turkey for accepting Russian missile shipment MORE (D-R.I.). “I’m concerned that the Defense Department is adrift in a way I’ve not seen in my whole time on Capitol Hill.”

Esper told senators that he met with White House officials on Monday and “went down the list of the 14 current slots that do not have a Senate-confirmed person and talked about each, and obviously I urged them to help us push folks through.”

After the hearing, Reed highlighted Esper’s commitment to fill jobs at the Pentagon as he spoke to reporters about the need for a “rapid” confirmation but without “taking any shortcuts” on vetting.

On touchy subjects, including comparisons to Mattis and standing up to Trump, Esper avoided any landmines that could derail his nomination.

Asked by Sen. Gary PetersGary Charles PetersEsper sidesteps question on whether he aligns more with Mattis or Trump GOP Senate challenger in Michigan raises .5 million in less than a month A better way to protect small businesses from cyberattacks MORE (D-Mich.) whether he more closely aligns with Trump or Mattis, Esper replied, “I don’t know where to pick between the two.”

“But I clearly share Mattis’s views, and I’ve expressed that publicly,” Esper added.

Mattis resigned in December over disagreements with Trump’s now-reversed decision for a full U.S. military withdrawal from Syria.

ADVERTISEMENT

In his resignation letter, Mattis laid out that he was leaving because his views did not “align” with Trump’s on the value of alliances such as NATO and the anti-ISIS coalition, in addition to standing firm against adversaries like Russia and China.

Asked if he would resign as Mattis did if he is asked to do something that contradicts his values, Esper said he would “absolutely” be willing to step down if he is asked to do something illegal or immoral.

“My time in the Army — I grew up with this view that if you’re asked to do anything illegal or immoral or unethical, then that would be the point at which you have to consider resignation,” Esper said.

On the Trump administration’s recent tensions with Iran, Esper assured lawmakers that “we do not want war with Iran.”

“We are not seeking war with Iran. We need to get back on the diplomatic channel,” he said.

Trump has said that he was within minutes of striking Iran last month in response to Tehran’s downing of a U.S. surveillance drone. Lawmakers now worry that the president will use a 2001 authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to take military action against Iran without congressional approval.

Asked whether the 2001 AUMF would justify military action, Esper flatly said, “No.”

He added that the 2001 authorization “applies to terrorist groups and organizations, and that would not be the case here with regard to the country of Iran.”

Esper did argue, though, that Trump has power under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. troops and respond to an attack from Iran.

He pledged to keep politics out of the Department of Defense (DOD), another top concern senators have had during the Trump administration.

“It is very important to me to continue the long-held tradition that DOD be apolitical,” Esper said. “I want to be sure we are conducting ourselves in a professional and ethical manner at all times.”

Esper briefly sparred with Warren, who criticized the nominee for not committing to further distance himself from Raytheon and for declining to say he would not return to the defense industry for at least four years after leaving his government job.

“Let me get this straight. You’re still due to get a million-dollar payout from when you lobbied at Raytheon, you won’t commit to recuse yourself, you insist on being free to seek a waiver that would let you make decisions affecting Raytheon’s bottom line and your remaining financial interest, and you won’t rule out taking a trip right back through the revolving door on your way out of government service,” Warren said.

“Secretary Esper, the American people deserve to know that you’re making decisions in our country’s best security interest, not in your own financial interest,” she added. “You can’t make those commitments to this committee, that means you should not be confirmed as secretary of Defense.”

Inhofe intervened in the exchange to allow Esper time to answer and later said Warren had exceeded her time.

“This is outrageous,” Warren exclaimed.

But Warren was alone in her harsh criticism, and several Republican senators leapt to Esper’s defense.

Inhofe told Esper the exchange “was unfair and you handled it beautifully.” Speaking to reporters later, Inhofe added that he found Warren “self-serving, arrogant and … disrespectful.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said he was “very disappointed that Sen. Warren would demonize you after your decades of service simply because you served in the private sector.”

“I guess she just needed a moment for her presidential campaign,” Scott added.

Warren’s opposition to Esper could slow down the Senate’s plan to fast-track his nomination, but it likely won’t derail it.

Lawmakers are zeroing in on the potential for foreign cyberattacks to take down the U.S. electric grid, with members in both chambers pushing hearings and a flurry of bills to address the issue. 

Congressional interest in the issue is growing following reports that Iran has stepped up its cyberattacks against U.S. critical infrastructure, and as Trump administration officials cite threats from Russia and China against the electric grid.

A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee focused on threats to the grid during a hearing on Friday, as lawmakers look to get ahead of the issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We know our enemies are rapidly developing new techniques to compromise and attack our grid, so it is vitally important that the federal government and the electric industry remain vigilant in ensuring the grid is secure,” said Rep. Frank Pallone Jr.Frank Joseph PalloneCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid Overnight Health Care — Sponsored by Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids — White House withdraws controversial rule to eliminate drug rebates | Grassley says deal on drug prices moving ‘very soon’ | Appeals court declines to halt Trump abortion referral ban Hillicon Valley: Appeals court rules Trump can’t block people on Twitter | Tech giants to testify in House antitrust investigation | DHS set for grilling over facial recognition tech | Commerce to allow sales to Huawei MORE (D-N.J.), chairman of the full committee.

The hearing featured testimony from witnesses including Karen Evans, the assistant secretary of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response. Evans confirmed the issues faced by the energy grid, saying that “the frequency, scale and sophistication of cyber threats continue to increase.”

Evans highlighted the 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) earlier this year on the threat.

The assessment found that Russia not only has the ability to execute cyberattacks against the U.S. electric grid, but is also “mapping our critical infrastructure with the long-term goal of being able to cause substantial damage.” 

On China, the ODNI warned that the country “has the ability to launch cyber attacks that cause localized, temporary disruptive effects on critical infrastructure.”

Recent analysis has also shown that Iran is stepping up cyberattacks against the U.S., drawing the attention of Trump officials. Christopher Krebs, the director of the Department of Homeland Security’s cybersecurity agency, said in a statement that officials “will continue to work with our intelligence community and cybersecurity partners to monitor Iranian cyber activity, share information and take steps to keep America and our allies safe.”

The array of threats has Congress taking notice, and lawmakers from both parties have introduced a number of bills to combat cyber threats to the energy sector.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee had led the way, with the panel planning to hold a markup in the coming week of several cyber bills designed to secure the grid, according to Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby RushBobby Lee RushCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid CBC lawmakers rip Justice Democrats for targeting black lawmakers for primaries The Hill’s Morning Report – Harris, Warren rise and Biden tumbles after debates MORE (D-Ill.). 

Rush’s subcommittee already cleared four cyber bills, including the Enhancing Grid Security through Public-Private Partnerships Act, which would enable DOE to provide cyber support to utilities that the secretary of Energy deems are at risk from cyberattack, and the Cyber Sense Act, which requires DOE to test the cybersecurity of products used in the power grid. 

The other bills awaiting consideration by the full committee are the Energy Emergency Leadership Act and the Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act. The first bill would require the DOE secretary to assign energy emergency and security functions to an assistant secretary, while the second would require DOE to examine the cybersecurity of pipelines and liquified natural gas facilities. 

All four bills have bipartisan support. Energy subcommittee ranking member Fred UptonFrederick (Fred) Stephen UptonCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid The 27 Republicans who voted with Democrats to block Trump from taking military action against Iran Overnight Defense: Woman accusing general of sexual assault willing to testify | Joint Chiefs pick warns against early Afghan withdrawal | Tensions rise after Iran tries to block British tanker MORE (R-Mich.), a sponsor of one of the bills, emphasized to The Hill on Friday that members of the committee are “on the same page” in acknowledging threats to the electricity sector. “We want to make sure that every tool is utilized to prevent anything bad from happening,” he added.

Other panels are at work as well. The House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Energy will hold its own hearing on Wednesday focused on “modernizing and securing our nation’s electricity grid.” 

A committee spokesperson said Evans will also testify at the hearing, along with officials from energy groups around the country. The spokesperson added that the hearing will “serve as a forum for experts to inform and give recommendations” on next steps around energy cybersecurity.

On the other side of Capitol Hill, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is also moving on the issue, with plans to mark up the Securing Energy Infrastructure Act on Tuesday. This bill, sponsored by Sens. Angus KingAngus Stanley KingCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand Overnight Defense: Woman accusing general of sexual assault willing to testify | Joint Chiefs pick warns against early Afghan withdrawal | Tensions rise after Iran tries to block British tanker MORE (I-Maine) and Jim RischJames (Jim) Elroy RischThis week: House Dems voting to hold Barr, Ross in contempt Congress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid Overnight Defense: House approves 3 billion defense bill | Liberal sweeteners draw progressive votes | Bill includes measure blocking Trump from military action on Iran MORE (R-Idaho), would establish a two-year pilot program within DOE’s national laboratories to identify the security vulnerabilities faced by energy sector entities. 

King’s office noted that the bill was inspired by the 2015 incident in Ukraine, when a cyberattack on the country’s grid shut down power for more than 225,000 people. The legislation passed the Senate last year, but the then-Republican House did not take action on it.

A companion measure was introduced in the House in February by Rep. Dutch RuppersbergerCharles (Dutch) Albert RuppersbergerCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid House passes bill to establish DHS cyber ‘first responder’ teams House Appropriations passes defense bill that would limit funds for border wall, pull US support from Yemen war MORE (D-Md.), where it awaits action in the Science, Space and Technology Committee. 

Separately, Sens. Cory GardnerCory Scott GardnerCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid The Hill’s Morning Report – 2020 jitters hit both parties in the Senate Republicans form conservation caucus to take on environment, climate change MORE (R-Colo.) and Michael BennetMichael Farrand BennetCongress mobilizes on cyber threats to electric grid Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand George Will says Democrats should nominate Bennet to beat Trump in 2020 MORE (D-Colo.) last week introduced the Enhancing State Energy Security Planning and Emergency Preparedness Act, which would authorize DOE to provide financial assistance to states to develop or revise state energy security plans. The senators also introduced companion legislation to the Enhancing Grid Security through Public-Private Partnerships Act. 

Energy sector groups have largely been supportive of the bills, but worry there are some issues Congress has failed to address.

Scott Aaronson, the vice president of security and preparedness at the Edison Electric Institute, told The Hill that many electric companies are looking for Congress to designate “some liability protection” in regards to cyberattacks on the grid. 

“We want to be supportive but we also want to protect our customers and our infrastructure,” Aaronson said on congressional efforts to secure the grid.

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

And there are other lingering questions.

Richard Mroz, senior adviser on state and government relations at Protect Our Power, said a serious roadblock to legislation to secure the grid is concern over costs. 

“One challenge industry and regulators have is what is this all going to cost, and it isn’t quite clear what those costs are yet,” Mroz told The Hill. “Consumers need to understand that to protect these systems, it’s going to cost something.”

But Mroz underlined the overall threats to the grid and the urgency facing lawmakers. He warned that despite industry’s efforts, in a worst-case scenario a cyberattacker could hack into a control system and endanger civilians.

“That is the issue, that an adversary could remotely turn off the power plant, turn off the wastewater treatment system, turn off the pumps or the switches for our cell tower,” Mroz said.

The Trump administration has proposed dramatically scaling down the number of staff from a Department of Labor public lands agency who work in Washington, D.C., leaving less than 1 percent of staff working in the nation’s capital.

An agencywide reorganization will leave just 61 employees from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the nation’s capital after the proposed transfer of 323 D.C.-based employees, which administration officials say would be completed in the next 15 months. 

The move, officials argue, will save taxpayers between $50 million and $100 million over the next 20 years by relocating employees closer to the issues they work on and in areas far more affordable than D.C. But former employees and environmentalists warn that the move will take key voices away from the Washington, effectively silencing them.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think it’s hard to suss out motivation, but I do think the impacts will be to undermine the authority of these employees. They will be further from the center of power and there’s a big potential that the BLM will lose those employees and others, expert people, in the reshuffle,” said Kate Kelly, a former senior adviser at Interior during the Obama administration who now works at the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

“It’s hard to believe that having the director and deputy director thousands of miles away from where secretary sits and makes decisions is a good move for the agency,” Kelly added.

BLM is responsible for overseeing 10 percent of U.S. public lands, including all oil and gas leases for onshore and offshore drilling.

Employees allowed to remain in D.C. will include BLM budget staff, legislative affairs and regulatory affairs aides and public affairs and public records requests divisions. Their offices will move to the Interior Department’s headquarters. The other D.C. staff will join the nearly 10,000 BLM employees who already work from states such as Colorado, Idaho and California.

The reorganization, first considered under former Interior Secretary Ryan ZinkeRyan Keith ZinkePress: Acosta, latest to walk the plank Senior Trump administration official to leave post next week 2020 Democrats vow to get tough on lobbyists MORE, is aimed at putting more agency officials closer to the lands they manage out West. At the heart of the change is the relocation of BLM headquarters to Grand Junction, Colo. Just 27 employees will be moved there.

“As Secretary [David] Bernhardt has observed, a meaningful reorganization is not simply about where functions are performed; rather, it is rooted in how changes will better satisfy the needs of the American people,” Joe BalashJoseph (Joe) BalashOvernight Energy: Trump plan could open Alaska’s Arctic region to drilling by next summer | States sue over offshore drilling tests | Lawmakers fail to pass lands bill this year Latest Trump plans would open Alaskan Arctic to drilling by next summer Trump officials attended conference where speaker said carbon dioxide makes planet ‘greener’ MORE, BLM’s assistant secretary to Land and Minerals Management, wrote in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday, explaining the plan.

“Under our proposal, every Western State will gain additional staff resources. This approach will play an invaluable role in serving the American people more efficiently and advancing the BLM’s multiple-use, sustained yield mission.”

Included in the transition will be many of the agency’s most senior policy officials. The Washington headquarters is home to 46 percent of top level policy staffers, according to BLM officials. 

“I kind of laugh at their suggestion that they will save in travel costs,” Kelly told The Hill. “I think that, for example, a ticket in and out of Grand Junction is not an easy flight, and they are likely going to expend a comparable amount of money flying leadership and other senior employees to participate in meetings they should be a part of.” 

Officials expect the move will cost $5.6 million and will pay for it through congressional allocations from fiscal 2019. Interior, which is responsible for covering moving costs to those who do decide to move, said it expects the figures will ultimately be lower as not everyone will agree to move. It’s unknown whether financial options, like buyouts, will be open to those who do not agree to move.

Steve Ellis, a former career official who served as deputy director for BLM over the course of his 38 years with the federal government, said the move was fraught.

“It’s a beautiful town and if I was sitting in a meeting and they said, ‘Raise your hand if want to go to Grand Junction or keeping riding in the red line in from Bethesda’ —I’d go to Grand Junction. But that’s not the issue,” he said. “For the agency to stay relevant our footprint in the bubble is key and it has been for my whole 38 years.”

Ellis said he worked for BLM across the country and in D.C. twice, and he said removing the small percentage of staffers that still work in the D.C. office would remove voices that advocate for those in the field and cost more as they pay to fly out employees who stay in D.C. with an expensive per diem. It also removes those who push the agency to focus on sustainability rather than industry development of resources.

“The lean right now is toward the consumptive interest,” he said, “The career leadership in BLM, one of their jobs is to prevent that from going entirely off the rails.”

Click Here: Sports Water Bottle Accessories

A Trump administration decision to move researchers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to the Kansas City area is threatening to spark the flight of more than half of the staff selected to move, gutting the agency of its top scientific voices. 

Staff have until midnight Monday to decide whether to uproot and join the department as it moves its research branches from Washington, D.C., lured by $26 million in promised incentives from state and local officials.

Critics see the move, set to be completed by Sept. 30, as yet another example of the Trump administration looking to sideline scientists and researchers, keeping them away from the corridors of power. Administration officials deny that, calling it a cost-saving move intended to have researchers closer to farmers.

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision comes as other agencies are also planning to relocate parts of their teams amid suspicions about the move. For example, the Interior Department is expected to announce new headquarters for the Bureau of Land Management on Tuesday.

“Moving these researchers out of Washington puts them out of earshot from policymakers. A lot of the research that scientists and economists do at [the USDA] has policy implications, and members of Congress need this information and need to have face-to-face meetings with these researchers,” Rebecca Boehm, with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The Hill.

“It keeps science out of the policymaking process. And we’ve seen many times that this administration doesn’t like facts or research that isn’t convenient or [is] an impediment to their agenda, so I think moving them away helps accomplish that,” she added. 

The move affects two wings of the USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS) employees analyze the agricultural market, but their research is much broader, including looking at food stamps, rural poverty and conservation.

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) employees work with universities to fund research and coordinate the process that issues research grants on agriculture-related subjects, including climate change adaptation. 

The two agencies voted to unionize in response to the move, as Democrats in both chambers and a number of groups that regularly work with the two agencies lobby to keep them in Washington.

Estimates tallied by employees show 70 percent of ERS employees designated for the Kansas City office will not be moving. For NIFA, 45 percent of those surveyed said they will not move. Overall, the move was expected to impact 547 staff between the two agencies.

But the numbers of staff refusing to move may grow. Some employees said staff at both agencies are trying not to tip their hands, saying they will move only if they do not find another job in the D.C. area.  

So far, just 27 ERS staff out of 250 have committed to moving to the Kansas City area, according to the employee tallies.

The UDSA argues the move will save $300 million over 15 years, but critics have said their cost-benefit analysis was shoddy and did not follow guidelines.

A different cost-benefit analysis from the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association found the move would cost taxpayers between $83 million and $182 million.

Democrats have blocked USDA funding from supporting the move and asked the agency to turn over information about its decisionmaking process, and they have sponsored legislation to keep the two agencies in Washington.

“I am appalled with the Trump administration’s decision to force hundreds of Washington-based USDA research staffers to uproot their lives to Kansas City in order to keep their livelihoods,” Rep. Chellie PingreeRochelle (Chellie) PingreeFederal employees turn their backs on Agriculture secretary after relocation plans announced Congress should make Interior’s Bernhardt ‘manage the land to stop climate change’ Hollywood stars celebrate #RightToBearArts at DC gala MORE (D-Maine), who sponsored the legislation, said in a statement when the move was announced. 

“Many of these staffers believe their relocation is an effort to silence their research into topics that do not align with the Trump administration’s political agenda, including the study of climate change and benefits of low-income food assistance,” she added. 

Employees had a list of complaints about a move they have likened to Amazon’s search for a second headquarters, as the USDA examined bids from 139 cities. 

That process was put on pause during the government shutdown, but on June 16 employees were told they had a month to decide whether they’d like to move to the Kansas City area or leave the agency.

Employees would then have two months to move to Kansas City — they must be there by the end of the fiscal year — but school in the area is slated to start Aug. 12, putting added pressure on those with families to quickly make a move.

Employees say they are getting conflicting information about how much of their moving costs will be covered by the government. Other key details about the move are also unknown so far, according to the employees.

The USDA said it was working to make the move as smooth as possible but did not respond to several specific questions about the move from The Hill.

“USDA has determinedly worked to ensure employees have the resources they need to make informed decisions about their employment and to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible,” the agency said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Employees say morale is at an all-time low and they worry about the future of an agency that is already hemorrhaging staff and having trouble completing its work.

“Honestly, I’m not sure how we’re going to bounce back or if we will,” said Laura Dodson, an agricultural economist with ERS who is now a union steward. “This agency is the product of like 50 years of institutional knowledge and gathering up researchers who are very specialized in their fields.”

Employees also say there are contradictions between what the USDA says it hopes to achieve with the move and how it would actually impact the department.

“It was sort of get fired or go,” said Ariela Zycherman, a national program leader with NIFA who is still weighing a move to Kansas City.  

“People keep saying, ‘Those East Coasters don’t want to come to Kansas or Missouri.’ The fact of matter is that’s not really the issue,” she said. “Many of us would move to Kansas City, but there are questions about future of agency and its effectiveness and questions about the way this was hastily rolled out and whether it will have long-term effects on our families’ well-being.”

The USDA has argued the move will allow employees to be closer to farmers — something employees say shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what they do.

“I think the biggest misconception around this is, we don’t serve individual farmers,” Dodson said. “Our stakeholders are primarily Congress and program leads and agencies and nonprofits in D.C. or people that come to meet with multiple entities in D.C.”

“I think our presence will be very much diminished. I think we’ll be quite literally out of sight and out of mind,” Dodson added.

The bipartisan Kansas and Missouri delegation pushed hard to bring the offices to the Kansas City area, calling it a hub for research and a talented workforce and touting the lower cost compared to Washington, D.C.

But employees say the hectic way the move has been handled has soured many about the USDA.

“I’ve never experienced morale like this in any job,” said Wesley Dean, a national program leader in sociology for NIFA. “My colleagues are deeply committed to the mission of the agency and see their positions as an opportunity to both shape the future of their scientific disciplines and to serve the American people. 

“These highly motivated civil servants feel as if their expertise and dedication to the agency and the public has been undermined and dismissed by the department,” Dean added.

Click Here: kanken mini cheap

New Zealand on Saturday officially launched its gun buyback program, as more than 150 owners reportedly turned over recently banned semiautomatic weapons and parts in exchange for money. 

The buyback in Christchurch, where a pair of mosque shootings left 51 dead earlier this year, is the first of many planned this year, according to NPR. 

ADVERTISEMENT

Mike JohnsonJames (Mike) Michael JohnsonNew Zealand launches gun buyback program in response to mosque shootings Stacey Abrams urges lawmakers to restore Voting Rights Act Bipartisan senators push new bill to improve foreign lobbying disclosures MORE, police commander for the Canterbury Region, which includes the city of Christchurch, said that owners turned over 224 semiautomatic weapons, as well as 200 gun parts, NPR noted. 

The network reported that the owners received a combined equivalent of approximately $300,000. 

Johnson told reporters that he was “ecstatic” by the amount of gun owners that showed up. 

The program occurred months after a gunman opened fire at multiple mosques. The alleged gunman is currently facing 51 charges of murder, 40 charges of attempted murder and one charge of committing a terrorist attack, according to reports. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced shortly after the shooting the country would ban the sale of all assault rifles and semi-automatic guns. During the announcement, she said that a  buyback program would be implemented to offer “fair and reasonable compensation” to owners. 

She said at the time that the buyback program was estimated to cost between $100 million and $200 million, but said it was a necessary price “to ensure the safety of our communities.”

NPR noted that about 250 buyback exchanges are scheduled this year. 

 

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

Federal prosecutors announced Monday that they found a fake passport, “piles” of cash and “dozens” of diamonds in financier Jeffrey Epstein’s home, according to The Associated Press.

The passport listed a residence in Saudi Arabia and a photo of Epstein but with a different name, Assistant U.S. Attorney Alex Rossmiller reportedly revealed during a bail hearing.

ADVERTISEMENT

Epstein was charged last week with sex trafficking and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. 

Click Here: Sports Water Bottles

The U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan alleges he abused dozens of underage girls from 2002 to 2005.

Prosecutors say Epstein created “a network and operation enabling him to sexually exploit and abuse dozens of underage girls,” and that he paid victims to recruit other girls.

He pleaded not guilty to those charges last week.

Epstein has also been accused of witness tampering by federal prosecutors since being arrested.

Authorities previously revealed that they found a trove of nude photos of what appeared to be underaged girls in the financier’s residence.

The new set of charges against Epstein come after he pleaded guilty to sex trafficking and was sentenced to 13 months in prison over a decade ago.

Alexander AcostaRene (Alex) Alexander AcostaFake passport, cash and diamonds found in Epstein’s home, prosecutors say Ross in Trump’s crosshairs after census loss: report Chris Christie: Trump administration departures go back to ‘how poorly the transition was run’ MORE resigned as Labor secretary last week over his role in a 2008 plea deal that resulted in Epstein’s lenient sentence. Acosta was a U.S. attorney at the time.

Sen. Ron WydenRonald (Ron) Lee WydenAdvocates frustrated over pace of drug price reform 2020 Democrats push tax hike on wealthy investors Hillicon Valley: FTC reportedly settles with Facebook for B fine | Trump calls to regulate Facebook’s crypto project | Court rules Pentagon can award B ‘war cloud’ contract | Study shows automation will hit rural areas hardest MORE (D-Ore.) is demanding answers from the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as to how the federal agency plans to secure election equipment amid reports that most machines depend on software that will soon be out-of-date and vulnerable to cyber attacks.

In a letter dated July 12 that was released on Monday, Wyden asked EAC Chairwoman Christy McCormick how the agency plans to address this “looming cybersecurity crisis.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Intelligence officials have made it clear that Russian hackers targeted our elections in 2016, and that they expect similar threats in 2020,” Wyden wrote. “The continued use of out-of-date software on voting machines and the computers used to administer elections lays out the red carpet for foreign hackers. This is unacceptable.”

The Associated Press recently reported that the majority of U.S. counties use election management systems that run on Windows 7, an outdated operating system that Microsoft will stop updating in January. The systems are responsible for programming voting machines and tallying votes.

Wyden focused his questions on whether products created by Election Systems and Software (ES&S), one of the major U.S. voting equipment manufacturers, would be decertified by the EAC prior to the 2020 elections. According to EAC documentation, the equipment uses Windows 7.

Wyden gave McCormick a July 26 deadline to respond to his questions.

The Oregon senator has been a leading voice on the topic of election security, introducing the Protecting American Votes and Elections Act with 14 Senate Democratic co-sponsors in May. The bill would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to set mandatory cybersecurity requirements for every aspect of the election system.

There are no nationwide mandatory cybersecurity standards for elections.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Rules Committee, where it is unlikely to see action due to Committee Chairman Roy BluntRoy Dean BluntGOP balks at White House push for standalone vote on debt ceiling Republicans say they’re satisfied with 2020 election security after classified briefings GOP senators decline to criticize Acosta after new Epstein charges MORE’s (R-Mo.) opposition to marking up any election security legislation.

“New federal election laws would not be the right thing to do, so I assume we’d have no legislation like that come through the Rules Committee,” Blunt told The Hill last week following a classified Senate election security briefing.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

The White House has sent the official nomination paperwork to the Senate for Mark Esper, President TrumpDonald John TrumpCNN’s Camerota clashes with Trump’s immigration head over president’s tweet LA Times editorial board labels Trump ‘Bigot-in-Chief’ Trump complains of ‘fake polls’ after surveys show him trailing multiple Democratic candidates MORE’s pick to lead the Pentagon, setting off a new, temporary power structure at the Defense Department. 

“At 3:04 p.m. today, the Senate received the President’s formal nomination of Dr. Mark T. Esper to be Secretary of Defense,” chief Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

The move means Esper must step down from his current role as acting Defense Secretary, temporarily heading back to his former Army Secretary position, as required under the 2010 executive order “Providing an Order of Succession Within the Department of Defense.”

Esper is set to go before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday morning for his confirmation hearing.

In keeping with the line of succession, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer will become acting Defense secretary in Esper’s place temporarily, according to the statement.

Spencer arrived in the office shortly thereafter to begin work as acting Department of Defense chief.

 “While my time in this role is anticipated to be brief, I am fully prepared and committed to serve as acting secretary of defense, and I will provide continuity in the leadership of the department,” Spencer wrote in a memo to Pentagon personnel.

Spencer is now the third acting Defense secretary this year. After former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stepped down at the end of  December, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick ShanahanPatrick Michael ShanahanThiel calls for federal investigation of Google Overnight Defense: House approves 3 billion defense bill | Liberal sweeteners draw progressive votes | Bill includes measure blocking Trump from military action on Iran Senators urge Trump to sanction Turkey for accepting Russian missile shipment MORE took his place as acting but pulled his name for consideration for the permanent position in late June. Trump then named Esper as the new acting Pentagon head.

Hoffman said in his statement that Spencer “has the full authority and responsibility of the Secretary of Defense. The senior team supporting the Office of the Secretary remains in place to ensure institutional continuity.”

The shift means a musical-chairs type movement within the top echelons of the department’s leadership, Thomas Modly, the undersecretary of the Navy, is now performing the duties of Navy secretary, and Ryan McCarthy moved from the duties of Army secretary back to his prior position of Army undersecretary. 

Republicans are in the dark about their party’s backup plan for raising the debt ceiling amid growing anxiety that they will need to do so in a matter of weeks.

Leadership wants to attach an increase in the nation’s borrowing limit to a budget deal, which would let them consolidate two tough political votes. But while Congress has until January to avoid deep budget cuts, it appears increasingly likely it will have to vote to raise the debt ceiling before leaving for the August recess.

ADVERTISEMENT

Underscoring the urgency, Treasury Secretary Steven MnuchinSteven Terner MnuchinPelosi calls for spending parity in budget agreement On The Money: Mnuchin warns US could hit debt limit in early September | Acosta out as Labor chief | Trump pitches trade deal in Wisconsin | FTC reportedly settles with Facebook for B fine Mnuchin warns US could hit debt ceiling in early September MORE sent letters to congressional leadership Friday requesting Congress vote before the recess, after first indicating to reporters that it was his “preference” lawmakers act this month.

Sen. John ThuneJohn Randolph ThuneGOP frets over nightmare scenario for Senate primaries High anxiety hits Senate over raising debt ceiling McConnell: Acosta’s future is up to Trump MORE (R-S.D.), when asked how Congress could raise the debt ceiling without a deal on spending caps to avoid the budget cuts, said it was a “good question.”

“Did he have a suggestion about that?” the No. 2 Senate Republican asked, referring to Mnuchin, who has been sounding the alarm about the need for an expedited vote.

Sen. John CornynJohn CornynTrump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand On The Money: Mnuchin warns US could hit debt limit in early September | Acosta out as Labor chief | Trump pitches trade deal in Wisconsin | FTC reportedly settles with Facebook for B fine GOP balks at White House push for standalone vote on debt ceiling MORE (R-Texas), an adviser to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellRepublicans make U-turn on health care Trump nominees meet fiercest opposition from Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand Racial politics roil Democratic Party MORE (R-Ky.), said it would be “very hard.”

Sen. Shelley Moore CapitoShelley Wellons Moore CapitoRepublicans make U-turn on health care High anxiety hits Senate over raising debt ceiling On The Money: Labor secretary under fire over Epstein plea deal | Trump defends Acosta as Dems call for ouster | Biden releases tax returns showing steep rise in income | Tech giants to testify at House antitrust hearing MORE (R-W.Va.), a member of leadership and the Senate Appropriations Committee, laughed when asked if she knew what the party’s alternate plan is for the debt ceiling.

“No, I don’t know what the backup plan is,” she said. “I think if we could reach a caps deal then the debt limit would probably go in with it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Voting on the debt ceiling before the August recess would give lawmakers two weeks to cobble together a strategy. The House is set to leave town on July 26; the Senate is scheduled to be in session through Aug. 2.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Richard ShelbyRichard Craig ShelbyGOP balks at White House push for standalone vote on debt ceiling Lawmakers concede they might have to pass a dreaded ‘CR’ On The Money: Fed chief warns of ‘unthinkable’ harm if debt ceiling breached | Powell basks in bipartisan praise amid Trump attacks | Federal deficit jumps to 7 billion MORE (R-Ala.), asked how to raise the debt ceiling without a budget deal, demurred on the tactics but argued it was imperative that Congress act.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

“That would be up to the leadership … but I think raising the debt limit is imperative unless you want to see chaos through the world financial market,” he said.

He predicted that lawmakers wouldn’t make a decision on strategy until the eleventh hour, saying that “urgency makes people active.”

“Generally, the Congress doesn’t do anything … until it’s the deadline or on the brink of either success or disaster,” Shelby added.

Members are hoping they’ll be able to come up with and vote on a larger agreement before the recess to raise the statutory defense and nondefense spending caps, which would allow them to stick with their original plan of wrapping the debt ceiling and eventual budget deal into one vote.

In a potential sign of progress, Mnuchin met with GOP leadership last week and talked to House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiDurbin responds to Trump tweet: ‘Thank goodness’ Omar made it to United States Sanders: Pelosi is being ‘a little bit’ too tough on Ocasio-Cortez Pelosi: Trump’s attack on Democratic lawmakers reaffirms his plan to make ‘America white again’ MORE (D-Calif.) on Tuesday, twice on Thursday and again on Friday and Saturday to try to negotiate a deal. They’re expected to continue speaking Monday. 

But politics is also at play.

Separating the debt ceiling from the budget negotiations could, the administration hopes, give Democrats less leverage in their demand for higher nondefense spending, which has emerged as a sticking point for Republicans.

Divorcing the two issues would give lawmakers the following options: They could either hold a stand-alone vote on the nation’s borrowing limit or quickly find another bill to attach it to that would get to President TrumpDonald John TrumpDurbin responds to Trump tweet: ‘Thank goodness’ Omar made it to United States ICE chief: I would not describe border facilities as ‘sweltering’ Pelosi: Trump’s attack on Democratic lawmakers reaffirms his plan to make ‘America white again’ MORE’s desk before the August recess.

Thune said if lawmakers have to vote on the debt ceiling before leaving at the end of the month “the question then becomes how. What’s the mechanism and what’s the process, and is there something it can ride on?”

“We’ll see,” he said when asked if there was other legislation moving that the debt limit could be attached to. “There are potential vehicles out there. It depends entirely on what comes together legislatively.”

But as legislation has slowed to a crawl in an era of divided government, there are few obvious bills moving that are expected to pass both chambers by the end of the month.

The House and Senate are set to go to conference on a mammoth defense bill. Meanwhile, the Senate will take up the House-passed 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, and both chambers are working on health care legislation.

Asked how Congress could raise the debt ceiling, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), a Trump ally, said, “That’s a great question. We have eight working days left.”

“It depends on what else they put in it. Frankly, I would rather have a clean one because it means the riders aren’t in there,” he said.

Sen. Mike RoundsMarion (Mike) Michael RoundsTrump puts hopes for Fed revolution on unconventional candidate Senate GOP raises concerns about White House stopgap plan to avoid shutdown Hillicon Valley: Harris spikes in Google searches after debate clash with Biden | Second US city blocks facial recognition | Apple said to be moving Mac Pro production from US to China | Bipartisan Senate bill takes aim at ‘deepfake’ videos MORE (R-S.D.), who caveated that he was unclear on a backup plan, said he wouldn’t be opposed to having a stand-alone debt ceiling vote.

“I think some people would feel more comfortable having them attached,” he said, referring to a budget deal and the debt ceiling. “But look … we’ve spent the money. This is kind of like a family who has a credit card and then says, ‘I’m not going to pay the bill.’”

But holding a stand-alone vote on the debt ceiling would likely force Senate Republicans to rely on Democratic votes for passage. With a 53-47 majority, the Senate would need at least 50 votes, or 60 if Democrats tried to filibuster, to pass a stand-alone debt ceiling hike. That means Republicans could lose three from their party and still have Vice President Pence break a tie.

Two years ago, 17 Senate Republicans voted against legislation to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling. In 2015, there were 35 Republicans who opposed legislation that included a two-year budget deal and suspension of the debt ceiling to prevent a government shutdown. A year before that, all 43 GOP senators who voted did so in opposition to increasing the debt limit, though a dozen initially helped defeat a filibuster.

Cornyn, when asked if Republicans could get a simple majority for a debt ceiling increase, said he hadn’t “whipped” the vote to measure support but added, “I think it would be hard.”

Capito said a stand-alone debt ceiling increase would be “a troubling vote for a lot of people.”

There are “some people that have never voted for it, you know, that never voted to raise it,” she said. “If you have a primary I think you would be worried about that.”

President TrumpDonald John TrumpControversial platform Gab slams White House for not inviting it to social media summit GOP senator: US should ‘reevaluate’ long-term relationship with Saudis Pelosi reportedly told Trump deputy: ‘What was your name, dear?’ MORE’s pick to be the top uniformed U.S. military official on Thursday said that pulling troops from Afghanistan prematurely would be a “strategic mistake.”

“I think it is slow, it’s painful, it’s hard, I’ve spent a lot of my life in Afghanistan, but I also think it’s necessary,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told the Senate Armed Services Committee about the 18-year-old Afghanistan War.

Asked by Sen. Angus KingAngus Stanley KingHarris, Schatz have highest percentage of non-white staff among Senate Democrats Overnight Energy: New EPA rule could expand officials weighing in on FOIA requests | Trump plan to strip conservation fund gets bipartisan pushback | Agriculture chief downplays climate concerns Trump plan to strip public land conservation fund gets bipartisan pushback MORE (I-Maine) when the U.S. should say “enough is enough” and withdraw from the ongoing war, Milley replied that the conflict should end “when our interests are met and I think that’ll be met through a negotiated settlement with the Taliban.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think we’re seeing some progress,” he added.

Milley, who is nominated to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, replacing outgoing chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford, said during his confirmation hearing that the continued U.S. presence is needed for successful negotiations with the Taliban.

“I think pulling out prematurely would be a strategic mistake,” he said.

He added that the U.S. military should keep a “modest amount of capability” in Iraq and Syria for stability following the defeat of the Islamic State caliphate.

The Trump administration in December wanted to quickly pull large numbers of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, but lawmakers from both sides of the aisle balked at the idea.

Trump backed off the plan to allow more time for negotiations, as government officials are currently involved in talks with the Taliban to broker a peace deal, with the seventh round of negotiations ending earlier this week.

U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has met with Taliban officials to form a “roadmap for peace,” which would include a joint call to end civilian casualties and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country pending a Taliban promise to not let Afghanistan be used as a base for terrorism.

Milley also told lawmakers that he will give his best military advice to Trump and would “absolutely not” be intimidated into making “stupid decisions.”

“I’ll give my best military advice, it’ll be candid, it’ll be honest, it will be rigorous and it will be thorough and that’s what I’ll do every single time,” he said.

King replied, “I believe that, but I think it’s very important to emphasize the Oval Office is an intimidating place. The president of the United States is the most powerful leader in the free world, and to be willing to say, Mr. President, you’re wrong about this … if it’s something that he or she doesn’t want to hear, there is no more important responsibility in your career that you will … have had to make that statement.” 

Milley replied that he and other military leaders are “not going to be intimidated into making stupid decisions,” and will give the best military advise “regardless of consequences to ourselves.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack