Five things to watch in talks on massive defense bill

The House and Senate are expected to begin negotiations in earnest in the coming weeks on a massive defense policy bill President TrumpDonald John TrumpTed Cruz, longtime fan of ‘The Princess Bride,’ swipes at cast members’ plans to reunite to raise money for Democrats Trump casts wide net in Labor Day press conference Biden vows to be ‘strongest labor president you’ve ever had’ MORE has threatened to veto.

Staffers on the House and Senate Armed Services committees have started unofficial talks since both chambers passed their versions of the $740.5 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in July, a congressional aide said. But lawmakers have not yet officially formed a conference committee to reconcile the two bills.

It’s unclear exactly when Congress will vote to go to conference, but the aide said it typically happens about 45 days after each chamber passes its version of the NDAA. Last year’s conference started in September after both chambers passed their versions in June and July.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump has threatened to veto the NDAA over a provision — variations of which are in each bill — that would require the Pentagon to rename military bases named after Confederate leaders.

Here are five issues to watch when the NDAA conference negotiations start.

Confederate base names

By far the issue that has attracted the most attention in this year’s NDAA is whether to force the Pentagon to rename military bases and other Pentagon property that have Confederate monikers.

The Senate’s version of the bill would require bases to be renamed in three years, while the House version of the bill would force the change in one year.

The issue is most prominent in the Army, which has 10 bases named after Confederate military officers.

The fight to change the names gained momentum after this summer’s widespread protests against racial injustice, and Pentagon leaders said they would be open to renaming the Army bases. Proponents of changing the base names argue traitors who fought to preserve slavery should not be honored with a namesake military base and that the names demoralize Black service members.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the provisions attracted a Trump veto threat, with the White House arguing the bill is “part of a sustained effort to erase from the history of the nation those who do not meet an ever-shifting standard of conduct.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeFive things to watch in talks on massive defense bill Overnight Defense: US, Russia trade blame over Syria incident | Pentagon calls out China’s ‘counterproductive’ military exercises, missile test | Democrats press Esper on COVID-19 response Lincoln Project expands GOP target list, winning Trump ire MORE (R-Okla.) has assured Trump the provision won’t be in the final version of the bill.

But it’s unclear how he hopes to remove it after it received bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. 

The Insurrection Act

This summer’s protests also thrust the 1807 Insurrection Act into the forefront of national debate.

Trump first threatened to invoke the law in June in order to send active-duty troops into cities to quell protests.

He alluded to the possibility again in late August, though the White House said days later he does not want to invoke the Insurrection Act.

After Trump’s earlier threats, the House voted to include in its version of the NDAA an amendment that aims to curtail a president’s powers under the Insurrection Act.

Among other changes, the House amendment would require the president and Defense secretary to make a certification to Congress that a state is unwilling or unable to suppress an insurrection in order to invoke the law. The certification would have to include “demonstrable” evidence that a state is unwilling or unable to act.

The Senate’s version of the bill includes a provision that would block Pentagon funding and personnel from being used against peaceful protesters.

But the Senate Armed Services Committee also rejected along party lines an amendment that would have curtailed Insurrection Act powers.

The Senate amendment went further than the amendment the House approved, but Republicans’ opposition to any Insurrection Act changes sets up a likely clash for the conference committee.

Nuclear weapons tests

The possibility of the United States conducting its first explosive nuclear test in decades became a flashpoint after reports that the Trump administration raised the possibility of doing a test as a negotiating tactic in arms talks.

The administration is seeking a new arms control agreement with Russia and China to replace the expiring New START treaty between Washington and Moscow. Beijing has repeatedly rejected joining the talks.

The Senate’s version of the NDAA includes $10 million to “carry out projects related to reducing the time required to execute a nuclear test if necessary.”

The House’s version of the bill, though, would prohibit funding from being used “to conduct or make preparations for any explosive nuclear weapons test that produces any yield.”

Opponents of the House language argue it is too restrictive, preventing any tests that might be necessary in an emergency and thereby emboldening U.S. enemies.

But opponents of resuming nuclear testing argue doing so would trigger an arms race and be detrimental to human health and the environment while providing no practical benefit because the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is checked with other technology.

U.S. troops in Germany and Afghanistan

The House version of the NDAA includes provisions that would put up roadblocks to Trump’s plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from Germany, as well as from Afghanistan.

ADVERTISEMENT

The bill would require several certifications be made before the Trump administration can proceed with plans to pull nearly 12,000 U.S. troops from Germany.

It would also require certifications before the United States can go below 8,000 troops in Afghanistan and then again before any drawdown below 4,000 troops. There are about 8,600 troops in Afghanistan now, with administration officials saying they plan to be at about 5,000 by Election Day.

The Senate’s version includes language warning against a “precipitous” withdrawal in Afghanistan, but does not have any provisions matching the House’s requirement for certifications before drawing down in Afghanistan or Germany.

There is bipartisan opposition to both drawdowns in both chambers of Congress. But Trump has gained a key supporter in the Senate for his Germany withdrawal that could make negotiations more difficult for that language, at least.

Inhofe said in July he thinks the Germany plan does “a good job of following the guiding principles I’ve described as the ‘three Fs’— forward presence, force projection and families.”

The border wall

The president’s wall along the U.S.-Mexico border has become a perennial fight for major legislation during the Trump era.

ADVERTISEMENT

Negotiations over last year’s NDAA dragged on in part over provisions in the initial House version that would have blocked Pentagon funding from being used for the wall and restricted the department’s ability to transfer funding between accounts after it moved around billions of dollars to use on the wall.

The language was jettisoned from the final version of the bill signed into law last year, and this year’s House version does not include similar provisions.

But there are still some wall-related provisions in the House bill that could trip up negotiations.

Specifically, the House NDAA would create caps on emergency use of military construction funding, setting them at $100 million for domestic projects and $500 million for overseas projects. Trump has used $3.6 billion in military construction funding for the wall since he declared a national emergency.

House Democrats argue the numbers in their bill are above what was needed even during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

But the Trump administration in its objections to the bill argued the limits would “greatly restrict” the military’s ability to respond to an emergency or war, saying in a July statement that “these arbitrary limits increase risks to the Armed Forces and the national security of the United States.”

Ohio Supreme Court rules against Kanye West bid to get on presidential ballot

Ohio’s Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously upheld the removal of rapper Kanye WestKanye Omari WestWisconsin Supreme Court pauses absentee balloting amid dispute over third-party candidates Ohio Supreme Court rules against Kanye West bid to get on presidential ballot Arizona Supreme Court rejects Kanye West’s bid to appear on ballot MORE‘s name from the state’s presidential ballot.

The 7-0 ruling affirmed a determination last month by Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) that the information on West’s nominating petition did not match the petitions signed by voters.

“A signature is the most basic form of authentication and an important, time-honored, security measure to ensure that a candidate aspires to be on the ballot and that a voter is being asked to sign a legitimate petition,” LaRose said in August. “There is no doubt that the West nominating petition and declaration of candidacy failed to meet the necessary threshold for certification.”    

ADVERTISEMENT

Specifically, LaRose said, the signature of West’s running mate Michelle Tidball was at odds with the paperwork used for the voter petitions.

An attorney for West, Curt Hartman, said West should be allowed on the ticket because both signatures were Tidball’s.

The court, however, ruled that West filed improperly even if both signatures are Tidball’s, because under state law the original statement of candidacy must be copied to all petitions.

“Requiring a candidate who files copies of a signed statement of candidacy to also file the original statement of candidacy ‘so signed’ is consistent with the statutory language” in state election law, the court ruled. “West and Tidball did not comply with this requirement and have therefore failed to demonstrate their substantial compliance with the statute.”

Click Here: camiseta river plate

The decision comes a day after the Arizona Supreme Court also ruled the rapper would not appear on the ballot. In its ruling, the court said electors for West failed to file a required election document listing their names and political affiliation.

West has also failed to make the ballot in several other states, including Montana, West Virginia and Wisconsin. He has so far been given ballot access in Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Utah and Mississippi.

Whistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump's comments

A whistleblower is alleging that top leaders at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have politicized intelligence, with the political appointees pushing him to alter intelligence assessments to match President TrumpDonald John TrumpCohen: ‘I guarantee that it’s not going to go well for whoever’ set up Woodward interview Pompeo says ‘substantial chance’ Navalny poisoning was ordered by senior Russian official Trump says he ‘almost definitely’ won’t read Woodward book MORE‘s public remarks.

The House Intelligence Committee announced Wednesday that it had received a whistleblower reprisal complaint from Brian Murphy, a career public servant and the former acting under secretary in DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

The complaint states that in several protected disclosures over the past two years, Murphy raised concern about “a repeated pattern of abuse of authority, attempted censorship of intelligence analysis and improper administration of an intelligence program related to Russian efforts to influence and undermine United States interests.”

ADVERTISEMENT

The complaint pointed to the actions of former DHS Secretary Kirstjen NielsenKirstjen Michele NielsenHillicon Valley: Whistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump’s comments | House panel details ‘serious’ concerns around elections in four states | Irish agency investigates Facebook’s EU-US data transfer Whistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump’s comments GOP anti-Trump group plans multimillion-dollar ad blitz in Florida MORE, now-acting DHS Secretary Chad WolfChad WolfHillicon Valley: Whistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump’s comments | House panel details ‘serious’ concerns around elections in four states | Irish agency investigates Facebook’s EU-US data transfer Former DHS chiefs call for stepped-up response to election threats Travel industry calls on administration to establish testing protocols for international travel MORE, DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli, Miles Taylor, who served as Nielsen’s chief of staff, and the acting deputy director for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Kash Patel.

Murphy alleges that he was instructed earlier this year to stop providing intelligence assessments about the threat of Russian interference, and to instead focus on the threats of China and Iran. The complaint says Wolf delivered the orders, but that they originated from White House National Security adviser Robert O’Brien. Murphy said he did not comply.

The complaint also alleges that Wolf told Murphy in July that the intelligence notification on Russian disinformation efforts should be “‘held’ because it ‘made the President look bad,'” but Murphy again refused and stated “that it was improper to hold a vetted intelligence product for reasons for political embarrassment.”

The complaint, which was first reported by CNN, alleges that he then faced retaliation.

“In response, Mr. Wolf took steps to exclude Mr. Murphy from relevant future meetings on the subject. The draft product was eventually completed without Mr. Murphy’s involvement and was made public in a leak to the media by unknown individuals,” the complaint reads.

ADVERTISEMENT

The complaint says the leak made it appear as though the actions of Russia were on par with those of Iran and China, which Murphy found “misleading and inconsistent with the actual intelligence data.”

Murphy says he was also asked by Wolf and Cuccinelli to modify intelligence assessments to make sure they aligned with Trump’s public remarks about antifa and “anarchist” groups, and he again declined to do so. 

Murphy said that in late July, Wolf first raised the idea of reassigning him to the DHS management division, which came amid media scrutiny that Murphy’s office had taken part in illegally gathering intelligence on journalists. The complaint says the reporting on this topic was “significantly flawed,”including reports that contained “completely erroneous assertions.”

“For example, DHS I&A never knowingly or deliberately collected information on journalists, at least as far as Mr. Murphy is aware or ever authorized,” the complaint says. 

Murphy says Wolf dismissed the reports as without merit, but said that moving Murphy to another office would be good for him politically because he wanted to move from the interim DHS chief to the confirmed DHS chief. 

ADVERTISEMENT

“Mr. Murphy stated that such a reassignment for political gain would constitute an abuse of authority by Mr. Wolf,” according to the complaint.

Ultimately, Murphy says he was reassigned to the role of assistant to the deputy under secretary for the DHS management division, a move he describes as retaliatory demotion.

DHS denied Murphy’s allegations.

“The Department generally does not comment on the specifics of OIG referrals, but we flatly deny that there is any truth to the merits of Mr. Murphy’s claim.  DHS looks forward to the results of any resulting investigation and we expect it will conclude that no retaliatory action was taken against Mr. Murphy,” DHS Spokesperson Alexei Woltornist in a statement.

“As Acting Secretary Wolf outlined in his State of the Homeland Address today, DHS is working to address all threats to the homeland regardless of ideology. The Acting Secretary is focused on thwarting election interference from any foreign powers and attacks from any extremist group,” Woltornist added.

Democrats are now seeking to hear from Murphy, with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffWhistleblower alleges top DHS officials sought to alter intelligence products to fit Trump’s comments A socially and environmentally just way to fight climate change Why the race has become ‘Trump the known’ vs. ‘Biden the unknown’ MORE (D-Calif.) issuing a subpoena for his deposition Sept. 21.

“The whistleblower retaliation complaint filed by former Acting Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis Brian Murphy outlines grave and disturbing allegations that senior White House and Department of Homeland Security officials improperly sought to politicize, manipulate, and censor intelligence in order to benefit President Trump politically,” Schiff said in a statement. “This puts our nation and its security at grave risk.”

The whistleblower complaint has echoes of 2019, when Democrats learned of a whistleblower complaint alleging that President Trump pressured Ukraine leaders to investigate his political foes — allegations that ultimately sparked the impeachment inquiry last year.

Updated at 6:30 p.m.

Click Here: camiseta river plate

Booker reaches out to lawmakers to seek support for 2020 bid

Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants Black lawmakers unveil bill to remove Confederate statues from Capitol Harris grapples with defund the police movement amid veep talk MORE (D-N.J.) on Thursday began calling members of Congress informing them he is running for president and is quietly making overtures to members for support, three congressional sources told The Hill.

“Yes, he is reaching out to members for their support,” said a former Democratic aide with direct knowledge of Booker’s intentions. “He’s going to do it during Black History Month,” which starts on Friday.

“I don’t know if it’s going to be tomorrow, I just know it’s going to be soon.”

Among those who received a call Thursday were senior members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), of which Booker is a member.

“He’s making calls,” a fourth source, Rep. Frederica WilsonFrederica Patricia WilsonHoyer: Infrastructure package to hit floor this month Democrats seek to tap into fury over George Floyd Democrats call for Congress to take action following death of George Floyd MORE (D-Fla.), confirmed to The Hill on Thursday night. “He left me a voice message. I have to call him back.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A Booker spokesman declined to comment for this story Thursday night. But on Friday morning, the first day of Black History Month, Booker posted a video — with images from inner cities and the civil rights movement — formally announcing his presidential bid.

“Over 20 years ago, I moved into the central ward of Newark to fight slumlords and help families stay in their homes,” Booker says in the video titled “Rise.” “I still live there today, and I’m the only senator who goes home to a low-income, inner-city community — the first community that took a chance on me.”

Booker’s entry into the 2020 Democratic presidential primary race was widely expected, but his announcement on the heels of the successful presidential launch of Sen. Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisRand Paul introduces bill to end no-knock warrants The Hill’s Campaign Report: Biden campaign goes on offensive against Facebook McEnany says Juneteenth is a very ‘meaningful’ day to Trump MORE (D-Calif.) suggests he and his team realized he could not allow his Senate colleague and fellow CBC member build too much momentum, some Democratic observers said.

Both Booker, 49, the former mayor of Newark, and Harris, 54, the former California attorney general, have been vying for endorsements from CBC members — a sign of the importance of the black vote in the Democratic primary, especially in states like South Carolina, Ohio and Georgia.

On Wednesday, both Booker and Harris attended the CBC’s annual policy retreat for more than an hour. Though their 2020 presidential bids were not the focus, both senators worked the room during breaks.

More than a dozen CBC members interviewed by The Hill said they were not ready to endorse anyone yet with the 2020 field continuing to take shape.

As he left the meeting in the Capitol’s basement, Booker sidestepped a question about whether he felt any pressure to quickly launch a presidential bid now that Harris had begun to win congressional endorsements from lawmakers in her home state.

“I’m excited for the candidates already out there. It’s really good for the Democratic Party and it’s just a good thing,” Booker told The Hill. “I’m excited about Kamala’s candidacy. It’s incredible. It’s historic.”

The former Democratic aide said Booker will have a leg up on Harris with CBC members, because he’s been a more active member of the group.

“He rarely misses a CBC meeting,” the former aide said. “Kamala Harris — great member — but that’s just not her thing. … So I could easily see Cory Booker getting more of their support.”

The aide compared the situation to 2008, when former President Obama thought he’d lock down the support of CBC members because he was a part of the group. “But he never went to a CBC meeting,” the former aide said, which allowed Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonWhite House accuses Biden of pushing ‘conspiracy theories’ with Trump election claim Biden courts younger voters — who have been a weakness Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton qualifies to run for county commissioner in Florida MORE to gain the support of much of the caucus.

“Cory Booker has invested in the CBC relationships.”

If Harris wins the nomination and defeats President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE, she would become the first woman to win the White House and the second African-American after Obama.

The Democratic primary is expected to be crowded, however. Aside from Harris and Booker, Sens. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.) and Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Warren, Pressley introduce bill to make it a crime for police officers to deny medical care to people in custody Senate Dems press DOJ over coronavirus safety precautions in juvenile detention centers MORE (D-N.Y.) are already running. So are Rep. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardGabbard drops defamation lawsuit against Clinton It’s as if a Trump operative infiltrated the Democratic primary process 125 lawmakers urge Trump administration to support National Guard troops amid pandemic MORE (D-Hawaii), former Rep. John DelaneyJohn DelaneyThe Hill’s Coronavirus Report: Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas says country needs to rethink what ‘policing’ means; US cases surpass 2 million with no end to pandemic in sight Minnesota AG Keith Ellison says racism is a bigger problem than police behavior; 21 states see uptick in cases amid efforts to reopen The Hill’s Coronavirus Report: Singapore Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan says there will be consequences from fraying US-China relations; WHO walks back claims on asymptomatic spread of virus MORE (D-Md.), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and Pete Buttigieg, mayor of South Bend, Ind.

“The field isn’t even half full yet,” one Democratic senator quipped.

Updated Friday at 8:05 a.m.

Click Here: New Zealand rugby store

Doug Jones gets challenger in Alabama Senate race

Rep. Bradley ByrneBradley Roberts ByrneOvernight Defense: Pentagon chief says he opposes invoking Insurrection Act for protests | White House dodges on Trump’s confidence in Esper | ‘Angry and appalled’ Mattis scorches Trump Republicans stand by Esper after public break with Trump Democrats press OSHA official on issuing an Emergency Temporary Standard MORE (R-Ala.) announced Wednesday that he is launching a bid to challenge Alabama Sen. Doug Jones (D) for his Senate seat in 2020.

Byrne said in a statement that he’s running to “defend the values important to Alabama” and to “fight with President TrumpDonald John TrumpSenate advances public lands bill in late-night vote Warren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases Esper orders ‘After Action Review’ of National Guard’s role in protests MORE” on several issues.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We need a Senator who will fight with President Trump to defend the Constitution, build the wall, stand up for the unborn, push for lower taxes, make health care more affordable, and protect the Second Amendment,” Byrne said in the statement. 

Byrne’s announcement comes months after he said last year that he was considering a challenge to Jones.

Jones was elected to the Senate in a special election in December 2017, defeating Republican Roy Moore. Jones’s victory followed news reports that Moore had pursued relationships with teenagers when he was in his 30s.

Jones is up for reelection in 2020, when Alabama voters will decide whether to keep him in office for a full six-year term.

Byrne, in an interview with The Hill last June, called Jones a “great guy” and a “terrific lawyer,” but added that he believed Alabama needed a senator who would vote differently.

“We need somebody who’s going to go win that election and then get in that position over there and represent Alabama,” he said at the time. 

Voting Rights Advocates Celebrate 'Huge Win for Democracy' as NC State Court Strikes Down GOP's Gerrymandered District Map

State officials have two weeks to redraw North Carolina’s district map following a unanimous ruling Tuesday by a state court which found that Republicans in the state were guilty of partisan gerrymandering.

Wake County Superior Court ruled 3-0 that the state’s map was unconstitutional and must be redrawn immediately—in time for the 2020 elections.

The case was brought by the watchdog group Common Cause after Republicans in the State Assembly drew the map, giving more political power to the voters likely to support them.

Common Cause applauded the judges’ decision, calling it a “truly historic win” for democracy in the state.

“The court has made clear that partisan gerrymandering violates our state’s constitution and is unacceptable,” said Bob Phillips, executive director of Common Cause NC. “Thanks to the court’s landmark decision, politicians in Raleigh will no longer be able to rig our elections through partisan gerrymandering.”

Other voting rights advocates praised the decision, which came after grassroots campaigning and numerous rallies called for fair district maps for the state.

As the Charlotte Observer reported last week, the current district maps—which were drawn in 2016 and 2017—divide the predominantly black campus of North Carolina A&T State University in half and separate many black voters in Wilmington, North Carolina from their white neighbors:

If communities weren’t divided up according to which voters were more likely to vote for the Republicans who control both houses of the state legislature, North Carolina A&T student Love Caesar told the Observer, “our voice could be really powerful. We could send shock waves with our votes here.”

Voting rights advocates expressed hope on Tuesday that the newly-ordered district maps would allow the priorities of North Carolina voters to be better represented in the 2020 elections.

“We will watchdog this process to ensure that the legislature draws fair maps and the process is transparent,” Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause said. “In other states the fight will go on in state courts, in legislatures, and through ballot initiatives to ensure every voter across this country has a voice at the polls.”

“Common Cause will be relentless in continuing our fight to end partisan gerrymandering once and for all,” she added.