January, 21 2021, 11:00pm EDT
A Week of Obstruction Leaves Biden Administration Without Confirmed Cabinet, Including Key National Security Roles
President Biden was sworn in this week with fewer confirmed Cabinet secretaries than any other president in recent history. This was a result of unprecedented obstructionism from Senate Republicans who failed to keep the confirmation process moving for President Biden's nominees when they were in the majority. And although control of the Senate changed on Wednesday afternoon, Minority Leader McConnell is taking unprecedented, bad-faith steps to obstruct President Biden's Cabinet and his ability to implement his agenda.
WASHINGTON
President Biden was sworn in this week with fewer confirmed Cabinet secretaries than any other president in recent history. This was a result of unprecedented obstructionism from Senate Republicans who failed to keep the confirmation process moving for President Biden's nominees when they were in the majority. And although control of the Senate changed on Wednesday afternoon, Minority Leader McConnell is taking unprecedented, bad-faith steps to obstruct President Biden's Cabinet and his ability to implement his agenda.
On Tuesday, the Accountable Senate War Room released a lookback at Senate Republicans' failure to keep these nominations on track:
- Words of GOP Senators Come Back to Haunt Them
President-elect Biden has gathered a top-notch, highly qualified team of experts who are ready to tackle our country's toughest challenges. His team must be in place as quickly as possible to enact the agenda that millions of Americans support: to address the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritize the needs of working families ahead of special interests, and undo the damage caused by the last four years of the Trump administration. Further delaying the confirmation of President-elect Biden's nominees will only cement Senate Republicans' legacy as disrupters of the decades-long tradition of ensuring a swift transition of power from one administration to the next. It is the responsibility of these lawmakers during this lame-duck period to fulfill their oath of office, which includes preparing the next administration for leadership, regardless of their personal political beliefs. Any senator unable to do that should step down from their position and make room for leaders willing to put country over party.[1/19/2021]
We also highlighted the risks these delays pose to national security, and how Senator Josh Hawley, after helping incite a violent insurrection, can once again be found at the center of this national security threat:
- Watchdog Group Releases New Report Highlighting Hypocrisy of Republican Senators Who Once Urged the Speedy Confirmation of Cabinet Members for National Security
"To see the same Republican senators who clamored for the quick confirmation of Trump's nominees slow walk President-elect Biden's picks is the height of hypocrisy," said Mairead Lynn, spokesperson for Accountable Senate War Room. "By abdicating their responsibility to ensure a smooth transition of power and a swift confirmation process for Biden's national security picks, Senate Republicans have put our safety and the security of our nation at risk. It's time for these Republican senators to end their partisanship and hypocrisy and step aside and let President-elect Biden's experienced, crisis-tested team get to work." [1/18/2021] - American Independent: GOP senators suddenly don't care if anyone's in charge of national security
According to a report from the anti-corruption watchdog group Accountable.US, numerous Republicans who are current members of the Senate pressed hard for Trump's nominees to be confirmed quickly back in 2017, yet have been relatively silent as Biden prepares to take office with a pending Cabinet and national security team. [1/19/2021 - Watchdog Group: The American People Shouldn't Have to Pay the Price Because Hawley Feels the Need to Pander to Extreme Base
"After helping to incite a deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, Senator Hawley has the gall to block the incoming Biden administration from having the top homeland security official in place on day one," said Mairead Lynn, spokesperson for the Accountable Senate War Room. "Alejandro Mayorkas would be responsible for stopping future insurrectionist attacks against our country and this move by Hawley puts our national security at risk yet again. The American people shouldn't have to pay the price just because Hawley feels the need to pander to the extreme wing of his base." [1/19/2021] - As Hawley Once Again Puts National Security At Risk, Senate Must Reject His Antics and Quickly Confirm Mayorkas
After helping to incite a deadly attack against the Capitol, Senator Josh Hawley is now blocking the nomination of the person responsible for stopping violent insurrection attempts and other national security threats -- the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Hawley's role in the insurrection led seven Democratic senators to file an ethics complaint against him yesterday. While it's unsurprising that Hawley is once again putting the demands of his extreme base over national security, the Accountable Senate War Room is calling on the rest of the Senate to reject Hawley's sideshow, and come together to confirm this critical nominee as quickly as possible. [1/22/2021 - CNN: Senate confirms Avril Haines as director of national intelligence, the first Biden Cabinet nominee confirmed
Biden may struggle to get additional nominees confirmed quickly, as those confirmations could be stalled until Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer cut a deal on a resolution outlining how they'll share power in the Senate, GOP and Democratic senators said Wednesday. [1/20/2021 - POLITICO: Really quite shocking': Inside the ugly transition at the Pentagon
The effort to obstruct the Biden team, led by senior White House appointees at the Pentagon, is unprecedented in modern presidential transitions and will hobble the new administration on key national security matters as it takes over positions in the Defense Department on Wednesday, the officials said. [1/20/2021 - Business Insider: Trump officials in the Pentagon reportedly blocked Biden's transition team from accessing information on military operations, including the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines
The Pentagon transition was uglier than previously known, Politico reported Wednesday, revealing that the political appointees at the Department of Defense muzzled generals and kept critical information from the incoming administration's transition team. Meetings on issues ranging from military operations in conflict zones to vaccines were canceled, delayed, or controlled in ways that made it difficult for the Biden transition team to get the information they needed, Politico reported, citing a number of Pentagon and transition officials. After his election loss, President Donald Trump fired his defense secretary and installed loyalists in top posts, an unprecedented move in an administration's final weeks. [1/21/2021]
Additionally, Accountable Senate War Room highlighted the overall hypocrisy demonstrated by Senate Republicans regarding the entire transition of power process:
- Watchdog Group: Rank Hypocrisy from Senators Who Suddenly Have Concerns About Deficit After Pouring Trillions into Tax Cuts for Rich
Now, when hard working American families need help more than ever, Republican senators are threatening to block much-needed aid for their suffering constituents and are pretending to be concerned about increasing the national debt, a hypocritical and dangerous stance that would have devastating implications for workers and families if it were allowed to obstruct COVID relief and economic support. [1/19/2021] - McConnell Obstruction Continues As He Refuses to Agree to Organizing Resolution, Further Slowing Down Biden's Cabinet Nominees
In a last-ditch effort to obstruct President Biden's Cabinet and agenda, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is refusing to agree to the organizing resolution that would allow Democrats to take control of committees and quickly confirm President Biden's Cabinet. [1/21/2021] - POLITICO: Democrats rebuff McConnell's filibuster demands
Senate Democrats are signaling they will reject an effort by Mitch McConnell to protect the legislative filibuster as part of a deal to run a 50-50 Senate, saying they have little interest in bowing to his demands just hours into their new Senate majority. McConnell has publicly and privately pressed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to work to keep the 60-vote threshold on most legislation as part of their power-sharing agreement. Democrats have no plans to gut the filibuster further, but argue it would be a mistake to take one of their tools off the table just as they're about to govern. [1/21/2021]
Finally, Accountable Senate War Room released a comparison of 2001, the last time there was a 50-50 Senate split, to 2021, and how under Democratic control of the Senate, Bush's nominees were confirmed in a timely manner:
- Flashback, 2001: In 50-50 Senate Under Democratic Control, Bush's Nominees "Breezed Through Their Senate Committee Hearings"
With Democrats controlling the Senate leading up to the 2001 Inauguration, they fulfilled their duty to ensure the incoming Bush administration was prepared to lead on day one, including holding hearings for 12 of President Bush's 14 Cabinet nominees before Inauguration Day. By contrast, following the 2020 election, Senate Republicans delayed, obstructed, and stalled the confirmation process for President-elect Biden's Cabinet. [1/21/2021]
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular