Tag

Slider

Browsing

Wednesday’s Boeing safety inquest in the Senate opened with lawmakers blaming a rash of incidents on Boeing planes on not only what they called the company’s poor safety culture, but also on the Federal Aviation Administration for letting it happen on their watch.

During a Senate Commerce Committee hearing Wednesday to probe what’s going wrong at Boeing after a 737 MAX 9 door plug blew out mid-air and amid growing whistleblower claims, Sen Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), chair of the aviation panel, skewered the FAA for being too hands-off in overseeing a program that essentially allows manufacturers like Boeing to self-certify their aircraft, with FAA oversight.

Testifying before the panel, Tracy Dillinger, Manager for Safety Culture and Human Factors at NASA who has been involved in safety reviews, said one of the foundational practices of a functional safety culture at a company like Boeing is understanding who is ultimately responsible for safety. She said she had reviewed Boeing employee surveys that showed that 95 percent of those responding did not know who their chief safety officer was.

Duckworth said it’s easy to see why employees are confused when “the FAA fails to take action in response to bad behavior.”

“It sends an unmistakable message” that bad behavior is acceptable, Duckworth said, adding the FAA in some cases sat on its hands and allowed the misconduct to happen.

Javier de Luis of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s department of aeronautics and astronautics, testifying before the panel, said he felt the self-certification program, which Congress has expanded over the years, had gone too far.

“For the last 20 years, every FAA authorization act has pushed more and more responsibility over the fence to the manufacturer side, usually with the understandable objective of increasing efficiency and productivity,” de Luis, who lost his sister on board a 737 MAX 8 crash in 2019 in Ethiopia, told the senators. “The two 737 Max crashes showed that the pendulum had swung too far.”

He noted that a 2020 law Congress passed responding to that crash and another in 2018 mandated some changes to the way the FAA’s delegated-oversight program works, and was at least a response “trying to correct this imbalance.”

A congressionally mandated panel examining Boeing’s safety practices following the 2018 and 2019 crashes that killed 346 people found that employees were also hesitant to report safety concerns for fear of retaliation.

Even after Boeing restructured its self-certification program to create more independence between business, design and engineering units — and Congress passed legislation to strengthen whistleblower protection for workers — the reorganization “still allows opportunities for retaliation to occur,” the report said, “particularly with regards to salary and furlough ranking.”

Sen. Maria Cantwell, chair of the committee, said that 2020 law did help curtail “the opportunities as your report is saying for retaliation, [but] we still are seeing that interference is occurring.”

“This is unacceptable,” she said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he hopes the Senate will move to dismiss the impeachment trial against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, as Republicans wrestle with whether to sign off on his offer to hold debate and votes Wednesday.

Senate Republicans have not signed off on an agreement to debate the impeachment and hold several key votes, potentially leading to little other than procedural votes and a quick dismissal. One key offer from Schumer: Allowing the GOP to vote on motions to hold a full trial and create a trial committee, key GOP priorities that won’t get roll call votes without agreement among all 100 senators.

“There’s still a few objections to that approach. … We’re coming up against the witching hour here. I don’t think we have a clear path forward, I don’t think that proposal’s been signed off on,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune said in an interview Wednesday. Without an agreement, “you wouldnt have anything locked in. It would be less structured.”

Senators reconvene for the trial at 1 p.m. on Wednesday to be sworn-in as jurors. Whether Republicans accept Schumer’s deal at that time is still up in the air, but it is crystal clear Democrats intend to end the impeachment action on Wednesday and move on to keeping a key intelligence authority from expiring Saturday.

“To validate this gross abuse by the House would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future. For the sake of the Senate’s integrity and to protect impeachment for those rare cases we truly need it, senators should dismiss today’s charges,” Schumer said.

Donald Trump could have cleared up confusion and hastened the arrival of National Guard troops to quell the Capitol riot if he’d called Pentagon leaders on Jan. 6, 2021, according to recent closed-door congressional testimony by two former leaders of the D.C. guard.

Michael Brooks, the senior enlisted leader of the D.C. guard at the time of the riot, and Brigadier Gen. Aaron Dean, the adjutant general of the D.C. guard at the time, told House Administration Committee staffers that if Trump had reached out that day — which, by all accounts, he did not — he might have helped cut through the chaos amid a tangle of conflicting advice and miscommunication.

“Could the president have picked up the phone, called the secretary of defense, and said, you know, ‘What’s going on here?’ Our law enforcement is getting overrun, make this happen!’” a committee staffer asked Brooks, according to the transcript of a previously unreported March 14 interview reviewed by POLITICO.

“I assume he could expedite an approval through the Secretary of Defense, through the Secretary of the Army,” Brooks replied.

But Trump never called any military leaders on Jan. 6, per testimony from senior administration officials to the Jan. 6 select committee — a fact that the panel emphasized in its final report that concluded Trump was uniquely responsible for the violent Capitol attack by his supporters. Rather, he was observing the riot on TV and calling allies in his quest to subvert the 2020 election, as outlined by committee witnesses and White House records.

Brooks’ exchange with the committee staffer underscored the reality of Trump’s inaction: “And to your knowledge, did that happen on January 6th?” the staffer continued.

“No,” Brooks said.

Dean, similarly, noted that if Trump had placed a call to Pentagon leaders at 2 p.m. — around the time the Capitol was first breached — and said “go,” the guard would have reached the Capitol sooner than it did that day.

“I think if the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or the president had said ‘Go,’ … or a combination thereof had said ‘Go,’ then we would’ve gone and we would’ve been there much faster,” Dean told congressional investigators on March 26.

Brooks and Dean are among four witnesses slated to testify Wednesday before a House subcommittee probing security failures that exacerbated the breach of the Capitol. All four were top advisers to William Walker, the commander of the D.C. guard on Jan. 6. Other witnesses include Timothy Nick, who was the aide-de-camp to Walker, and Earl Matthews, a top lawyer for the National Guard at the time. POLITICO reviewed transcripts of closed-door interviews that all four men gave to the Administration Committee over the past five weeks.

The bulk of their testimony focused on deep disagreement between the D.C. guard leadership and the Pentagon about when and whether an order was given to deploy to the Capitol. The witnesses told the Administration Committee that military leaders seemed reluctant to send guard troops to the Capitol until hours after violence had broken out.

Further, they described mixed messages on phone calls with the Pentagon that left them in a holding pattern, lacking clarity about whether they had permission to deploy. All four also indicated they had testified to the Jan. 6 committee in an “informal” capacity, meaning there were no transcripts of their interviews.

And they said they had virtually no contact from Ryan McCarthy, the then-Army secretary, even though he was a key player who was in frequent contact with the D.C. guard in the run-up to Jan. 6.

McCarthy did not respond to a request for comment. He has told the Jan. 6 committee that a call from Trump would not have hastened the National Guard response because he was already moving as quickly as possible.

The testimony is the latest addition to a complicated picture of the military’s response to the violence, which raged for hours on Jan. 6 until the D.C. police and National Guard helped the Capitol Police contain it that evening. The riot select committee found that Trump made no calls to senior leaders of the Justice Department, Pentagon or Department of Homeland Security while the violence raged — nor did he reach out to his vice president, Mike Pence, who was sheltering from the mob at the Capitol.

Rather, Trump watched the riot unfold on TV and made phone calls to lawmakers who he hoped would support his bid to block President Joe Biden’s victory.

The men, whom the panel described as “whistleblowers,” sharply dispute claims by former Pentagon leaders — from McCarthy to then-Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller to former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley — that the National Guard was deployed to the Capitol as quickly as possible on Jan. 6.

Rather, they say, they had no contact from Miller or McCarthy until much later in the day, and they sharply dispute claims that McCarthy authorized the guard’s deployment to the Capitol by 3:04 p.m. on Jan. 6.

That’s the context in which Brooks and Dean suggested that perhaps a phone call from Trump — as conditions at the Capitol were clearly deteriorating — could have cut through the clutter and resulted in a quicker deployment.

Matthews differed from Brooks and Dean on the question of whether Trump’s involvement could have made a difference. Because Trump had already delegated authority to Miller and McCarthy, there was little for him to do, according to Matthews, who told the Administration Committee that it’s not clear whether McCarthy would have heeded his call.

“The president wasn’t going to call us because he’s trusting the chain of command,” Matthews told the Administration panel. He noted that some testimony to the Jan. 6 committee underscored concerns among military leaders that Trump might try using a troop presence at the Capitol for nefarious purposes.

In his testimony to the Jan. 6 committee, McCarthy denied harboring concerns that Trump might misuse the National Guard.

“I mean, in the lead-up to it, [I] did not see anything that would give you the sense he was going to order us to send troops to the Capitol in support of anything untoward,” McCarthy said.

In a statement Matthews issued ahead of his public testimony, he elaborated on his belief.

“The committee knew that even if President Trump had called down personally to the Secretary of the Army, who had effective operational control of the D.C. National Guard, to direct the immediate movement of the Guard, it would have had no impact.”

Speaker Mike Johnson has released a specific outline of his four-part proposal to send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan, moving ahead with the plan that’s fueling fresh conservative demands for his ouster.

Aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan is split into three different bills, with a fourth that would seize Russian assets, force a TikTok sale and impose sanctions on Iran. Bill text on the first three is expected imminently, while language on the fourth should come later Wednesday. Some of the assistance would be conditioned as a loan, along with mandates for military strategy and oversight.

After meeting late into the night Tuesday with various House GOP lawmakers, Johnson has decided to also move to tee up debate on a separate border security measure, which includes what GOP leaders are calling “core components” of H.R. 2, the House-passed border security and immigration bill favored by conservatives. A vote to debate that package will not be linked to the foreign aid measures, however, and amendments will be allowed.

The fate of the newly unveiled bills — and of the speaker’s leadership tenure — will become clearer as the week goes on, with Johnson facing conflicting demands for action to support U.S. allies after Iran’s weekend attack on Israel. The speaker’s first test will be whether he can get enough votes to tee up floor debate on the foreign aid measures that several House hardliners have already threatened to block.

Despite the border component of the deal, conservatives are already vowing to block the bills. House Freedom Caucus Chair Bob Good (R-Va.) called on “every true conservative” to tank the package before text was released, and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said that he would oppose bringing them to the floor.

“The Republican Speaker of the House is seeking a rule to pass almost $100 billion in foreign aid — while unquestionably, dangerous criminals, terrorists, & fentanyl pour across our border. The border ‘vote’ in this package is a watered-down dangerous cover vote,” Roy posted on X.

Releasing text of the bills would technically start a 72-hour countdown ahead of final passage, if the speaker upholds his commitment to a House rule granting lawmakers three full days to review bill text. In a text to House lawmakers midday Wednesday, the speaker said the House will have time “for a robust amendment process,” predicting final passage Saturday evening.

Congressional Democrats and the White House are quietly watching the speaker try to get through his latest predicament, after Johnson sat for nine weeks on a bipartisan $95 billion foreign assistance package that the Senate passed overwhelmingly in February. Seeking Democratic help in getting aid bills through the House would likely further inflame conservative calls to fire the speaker; Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has signed onto Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) ouster proposal.

When Johnson announced broad contours of the plan Monday night, he predicted that the House would pass foreign aid before departing for a previously scheduled week-long recess.

“We had a lot of heavy lifts here in the House in the last couple of months, and we finally got to this priority — it is a priority. I do expect that this will be done this week,” the speaker said. “And we’ll be able to leave knowing that we’ve done our job here.”

An ample number of conservatives have signaled concerns over the fact that Johnson is likely to need at least some Democratic votes to begin debate on the bills.

Democrats, led by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, have urged Johnson to grant a vote to the Senate package, which would go straight to President Joe Biden’s desk if it passes.

Some efforts to court Democrats are already underway. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who led talks to craft a bipartisan foreign aid proposal, said he’s spoken to centrist Democrats in the Problem Solvers Caucus about voting in support of teeing up debate, to make up for Republican defections.

Democrats aren’t committing to help Johnson out yet on the process, signaling their votes will be dependent on the content of the bills.

“I’ll follow leadership on this,” said Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee. “If they get this together, and it’s sensible and stuff that the White House and Hakeem can live with, then yeah, I’d vote for that rule.”

Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.

On Wednesday morning, Capitol Hill was still waiting on Speaker Mike Johnson’s highly anticipated foreign aid package.

He’s pledged to give his colleagues 72 hours to review the four separate bills before voting on them, which would push action into the weekend — right before a planned Passover recess packed with CODEL trips.

The foreign aid package’s separate bills would send aid to Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. A fourth could include a package of related measures, including a lend-lease deal for military aid, a ban on TikTok in the U.S. and provisions to sell off assets seized from Russian oligarchs.

The plan, as it stands before lawmakers can get their hands on text, is to try to pass each as stand-alone measures before packaging them together and shipping them to the Senate.

Johnson spent Tuesday meeting with different factions and cross-sections of the Republican Conference, hearing out frustrations and trying to sell his plan to colleagues. Some of the four foreign aid bills — especially the Ukraine measure — would garner hefty Democratic support. That’s a prospect many conservatives are uncomfortable with. They also want border security policies included in the package.

The foreign aid bid comes not only with high stakes for foreign allies, but also for Johnson, as he tries to keep his job amid threats from within his conference.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) effort to oust Johnson from the speakership on Tuesday, but the pair still don’t have a timeline for acting on their motion to vacate.

Likely not the trial of the century: Senators will be sworn in Wednesday as jurors in the impeachment trial of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, though it could be relatively quick.

There were negotiations on Tuesday to possibly allow for a few hours of debate before Democrats vote to dismiss the articles of impeachment. But nothing was finalized Tuesday evening. Plus, it would require unanimous consent, which means any naysayer could tank an agreement.

There will be a rare packed chamber in the Senate on Wednesday starting at 1 p.m., with senators all in their seats, for the Mayorkas proceedings.

The promise of an onslaught of spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has loomed over Democratic primaries for months — but it hasn’t yet materialized.

Progressives critical of Israel, however, think they can exploit even the threat of AIPAC’s involvement in their races, in yet another sign of the schism among Democrats over the escalating Israel-Hamas war.

Their digital ads warn of the group’s influence and seek to energize small-dollar donors. Advocacy groups supporting them have formed an anti-AIPAC coalition to coordinate a defense against the expected influx of cash. Progressive incumbents have sought assistance from their leadership, demanding unified party support to block challenges.

It’s an effort to neutralize AIPAC, which has vowed to drop $100 million this cycle to support pro-Israel candidates, including ousting progressives, in part, for their support for Palestinians amid the war. And there are some signs it may be working. Days after Iran’s attack on Israel, the deep-pocketed lobby group still has yet to turn on the spigots in primaries against some prominent progressives, like Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), the first member of the liberal “Squad” to face a primary this year.

And in the few races AIPAC has jumped into, it has had a limited track record so far. That’s made the group a more effective foil, at least so far, than the heavyweight player many on the left had feared it would be in Democratic primaries.

AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, has spent around $6 million on advertising this year, according to ad tracker AdImpact. Most of that — around $4 million — was against David Min, a progressive running for outgoing California Democratic Rep. Katie Porter‘s seat. Min ended up winning a spot in the top-two primary system anyway, and the candidate UDP backed didn’t. Though it hasn’t directly spent in their races yet, AIPAC has still bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for the primary challengers to Squad members Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.).

Much of progressives’ attacks have centered on the groups’ donors: Republican donors — including former Home Depot CEO Bernie Marcus and billionaire financier Paul Singer — are among its contributors. (Major Democratic donors also give to AIPAC.) Progressives also note that the group has endorsed candidates who voted against certifying the 2020 election.

“Hopefully where we’ve been successful is in letting people know that their money should be considered toxic in a primary. Because this is not genuinely Democratic money coming into a Democratic primary to elect a Democrat,” said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), a leader of the Progressive Caucus’ political arm who’s been vocal in opposition to the group’s influence.

AIPAC pushes back on that characterization. AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said in a statement that its PACs support “scores of pro-Israel progressives who understand it is entirely consistent with progressive values to support the Jewish state. We oppose extremist anti-Israel detractors who seek to undermine America’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Iranian terrorist proxies.”

The full scope of AIPAC’s and UDP’s spending is yet to be seen, given that most primary campaigns are not in full swing yet. But there’s one particularly notable gap right now: Lee’s race in Pennsylvania’s 12th District. Lee had been a top AIPAC target in 2022, when it spent millions of dollars against her — but now, less than a week out from the Pennsylvania primary, she hasn’t faced any outside spending from the group.

That hasn’t stopped Lee from railing against the group. The campaign has warned of AIPAC’s ability to flood the race with money, and she criticizes her primary opponent, Edgewood Borough Council Member Bhavini Patel, for her links to deep-pocketed GOP donors.

Lee said she spoke out against AIPAC throughout her campaign because “our voters have a right to know that when they see ads funded by the ‘United Democracy Project,’ it’s actually a right-wing lobby.”

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for UDP, said the group is still monitoring 15 to 20 races on both sides of the aisle, “looking carefully at opportunities to prevent anti-Israel candidates from being elected to Congress.”

Lee has, however, attracted negative spending from Moderate PAC, a group funded primarily by GOP megadonor Jeff Yass that has poured in hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting Patel. (At a debate earlier this month, Patel said she “denounces” Yass, who is linked to former President Donald Trump.)

Lee is leaning on that outside spending — both the actual money coming in from Moderate PAC and the anticipated cash from AIPAC — in advertising and fundraising appeals to broadly attack “Republican-funded super PACs.” Other progressives have similarly used the threat of AIPAC’s involvement on the campaign trail and in fundraising pleas. It’s been a particularly popular topic for fellow members of the Squad, which AIPAC spent millions unsuccessfully trying to block from Congress in the midterms.

“Dark money super PACs like AIPAC donated huge sums of money to amplify Ilhan’s opponent last cycle and are preparing to do so again to defeat our movement,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in a recent digital ad. “We need all of the support we can get to fight back and WIN.”

Omar, in a statement, told POLITICO: “No Democrat should be accepting money from a group that openly supports and funds over one hundred Republican insurrectionists.”

But Omar’s primary — which is months away — hasn’t seen any outside intervention from AIPAC, according to AdImpact. And she has raised hefty sums, raking in over $1.7 million last quarter.

UDP spent six figures against Omar in 2022, when she faced former Minneapolis City Council member Don Samuels, who’s also seeking a rematch this time. So far, the super PAC hasn’t placed any ad reservations in the race, nor has AIPAC endorsed her competitors.

Some of the other most outspoken critics of the Israeli government, like Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), aren’t even facing competitive primaries this cycle (despite some unsuccessful attempts to recruit challengers). But they too have leaned into the anti-AIPAC messaging. Tlaib has run multiple digital ads explicitly calling out the group for “spending millions against progressive women of color,” and Pressley had done so too.

“Every Democratic candidate running for any elected office should be condemning AIPAC spending,” said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for the progressive Justice Democrats.

In anticipation of the spending barrage, Reject AIPAC — a coalition of progressive groups including Justice Democrats, along with Jewish and Muslim advocacy groups — launched this cycle to counteract AIPAC’s opposition campaign. The coalition, which aims to defend the AIPAC-targeted candidates, last week put out a video echoing these criticisms of the group.

But while AIPAC and UDP have stayed out of some high-profile progressives’ races so far, the groups in recent weeks have waded into House primaries where the Israel-Hamas war hasn’t been anywhere near the center of attention.

United Democracy Project played in Illinois’ 7th District against gun violence prevention advocate Kina Collins, who unsuccessfully challenged longtime Democratic Rep. Danny Davis. The group spent around $500,000 on advertisements and mailers opposing her, according to campaign finance filings.

UDP entered Indiana’s 8th District earlier this month, a deep-red open seat, where the group is targeting former Republican Rep. John Hostettler. The group launched an ad slamming him for his previous votes against Israel.

The group has also reserved over $1 million in airtime in Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District to boost state Sen. Sarah Elfreth. She is running against a crowded field of candidates that includes former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who rose to prominence after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Dunn objected to the group entering the race, and started airing a TV ad saying: “You’d think after Jan. 6, we’d see change. But greedy corporations and corrupt politicians went back to rigging the system.”

Dunn had vowed to be a supporter of Israel and Jewish people in a position paper he previously provided to AIPAC. In the document, obtained by POLITICO, Dunn name-checked lawmakers who’d been strong Israel allies, like former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), as influencing his views.

Elfreth campaign manager Pat Murray said in a statement she was fighting to change the campaign finance system but would be “playing by the rules as they exist today, and we are not going to turn down help.”

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Former Florida Sen. Bob Graham, who chaired the Intelligence Committee following the 2001 terrorist attacks and opposed the Iraq invasion, has died. He was 87.

His family announced the death Tuesday in a statement posted on X by his daughter Gwen Graham.

Graham, who served three terms in the Senate, made an unsuccessful bid for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, emphasizing his opposition to the Iraq invasion.

But his bid was delayed by heart surgery in January 2003. Never able to gain enough traction with voters to catch up, he bowed out that October. He didn’t seek reelection in 2004 and was replaced by Republican Mel Martinez.

A man of many quirks, Graham perfected the “workdays” political gimmick of spending a day doing various jobs from horse stall mucker to FBI agent. He kept a meticulous diary, noting almost everyone he spoke with, everything he ate, the TV shows he watched and even his golf scores.

But he closed the notebooks to the media during his short-lived presidential bid.

Graham was among the earliest opponents of the Iraq war, saying it diverted America’s focus on the battle against terrorism centered in Afghanistan. He also criticized President George W. Bush for failing to have an occupation plan in Iraq after the U.S. military threw out Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Graham said Bush took the United States into the war by exaggerating claims of the danger presented by the Iraqi weapons of destruction that were never found. Saying Bush distorted intelligence data, Graham argued that was more serious than the sexual misconduct issues that led to President Clinton’s impeachment in the late 1990s.

It spurred Graham to launch his brief presidential bid.

“The quagmire in Iraq is a distraction that the Bush administration, and the Bush administration alone, has created,” Graham said in 2003.

As a politician, few were better. Florida voters hardly considered him the wealthy Harvard-educated attorney that he was.

Graham’s political career spanned five decades, beginning with his election to the Florida House of Representatives in 1966.

He won a state Senate seat in 1970, was elected governor in 1978 and was reelected in 1982. Four years later, he won the first of three terms in the U.S. Senate when he ousted incumbent Republican Paula Hawkins.

Graham remained widely popular with Florida voters, winning reelection by wide margins in 1992 and 1998 when he carried 63 of 67 counties.

Even when in Washington, Graham never took his eye off the state and the leadership in Tallahassee.

When Gov. Jeb Bush and the Republican-controlled Legislature eliminated the Board of Regents in 2001, Graham saw it as a move to politicize the state university system. He led a successful petition drive the next year for a state constitutional amendment that created the Board of Governors to assume the regents’ role.

Daniel Robert Graham was born Nov. 9, 1936, in Coral Gables where his father, Ernest “Cap” Graham, had moved from South Dakota and established a large dairy operation. Young Bob milked cows, built fences and scooped manure as a teenager. One of his half-brothers, Phillip Graham, was publisher of The Washington Post and Newsweek until he committed suicide in 1963, just a year after Bob Graham’s graduation from Harvard Law.

In 1966 he was elected to the Florida Legislature, where he focused largely on education and health care issues.

But Graham got off to a shaky start as Florida’s chief executive, and was dubbed “Gov. Jello” for some early indecisiveness. He shook that label through his handling of several serious crises.

As governor, he also signed numerous death warrants, founded the Save the Manatee Club with entertainer Jimmy Buffett and led efforts to establish several environmental programs.

Graham pushed through a bond program to buy beaches and barrier islands threatened by development and also started the Save Our Everglades program to protect the state’s water supply, wetlands and endangered species.

Graham also was known for his 408 “workdays,” including stints as a housewife, boxing ring announcer, flight attendant and arson investigator.

“This has been a very important part of my development as a public official, my learning at a very human level what the people of Florida expect, what they want, what their aspirations are and then trying to interpret that and make it policy that will improve their lives” said Graham in 2004 as he completed his final job as a Christmas gift wrapper.

After leaving public life in 2005, Graham spent much of his time at a public policy center named after him at the University of Florida and pushing the Legislature to require more civics classes in the state’s public schools.

Graham was one of five members selected for an independent commission by President Barack Obama in June 2010 to investigate a massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that threatened sea life and beaches along several southeastern Gulf states.

House lawmakers passed multiple pieces of legislation focused on penalizing Iran following its attack on Israel last weekend.

The measures passed include:

A resolution declaring the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’’ is “outrightly antisemitic and must be strongly condemned.”

The Holding Iranian Leaders Accountable Act, which would require a report on the financial holdings of senior Iranian officials.
The Iran Sanctions Accountability Act, aimed at preventing the evasion of sanctions against Iran.

The Strengthening Tools to Counter the Use of Human Shields Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that use civilians as human shields.

The Illicit Captagon Trafficking Suppression Act, which would impose sanctions on entities that produce or facilitate distribution of a synthetic stimulant named Captagon.

The No Technology for Terror Act, which would permanently bar the export of U.S.-made technology to Iran.

The No Paydays to Hostage Takers Act, which would bar U.S. admittance of sanctioned officials for United Nations meetings.

The Solidify Iran Sanctions Act, which would make permanent certain sanctions on Iran.
A resolution urging the European Union to “expeditiously” declare the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization

There is no indication yet that the Senate will act on any of the measures.

Senate leaders are trying to strike an agreement that would allow a few hours of debate before proceeding to a vote to potentially dismiss or table the impeachment trial against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.

Though it would not alter the outcome, such a pact would avoid a potential pileup of procedural motions from Senate Republicans who are demanding a prolonged trial. And it would give senators additional time to debate Mayorkas’ record, which Republicans could use to criticize Democrats for an upcoming disposal of a full trial.

The deal is not yet final — and leaders have some time before the Senate meets again on the issue. While the House delivered the articles to the Senate on Tuesday, senators will not be sworn in as jurors until Wednesday. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declined to say how much debate time Senate Republicans could get as part of the deal, but said the hope is negotiations to that end wrap up by the end of Tuesday.

“It sounds like they are making positive progress on how to dispose of impeachment,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “There’s still some negotiations going on, but I think that’s good news.”

Still, any such deal would require unanimous consent in the Senate, meaning any one senator could scuttle it. Asked if he expects a Republican will object to the deal, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said “all options are on the table.” And he’s not alone in floating some tepid opposition to a potential agreement.

Shutting down the trial too quickly “would be a nuclear option on the part of the Democrats,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). “So I think that gives us the right to shut this place down.”

Of course, Republicans’ ideal situation would be a full trial with presentations from House impeachment managers and arguments for supporting evidence. Since any bipartisan agreement would fall far short of that due to Democratic opposition, some Senate Republicans are already voicing their concerns with any intermediate deal.

“I don’t think you can cure the fact that we’re not going to have a trial by saying: ‘But well, we talked about it for a while, so therefore that’s kind of a trial,’” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters. Hawley added that to him, a trial has to include allowing managers to present evidence.

“The House should be able to take as long as they want to present the case, and then let them go defend,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who said a few hours of debate would not alleviate his concerns.

But the deal may be welcome news for other Senate Republicans, particularly those that might consider joining Democrats in tabling or dismissing the trial altogether. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney, a Republican who has been critical of the impeachment, said Tuesday he wants to see the Senate consider the trial and debate it before shutting it down.

Asked about the potential deal, Romney said “if there is debate of a fulsome nature, that would be preferential.” Asked what amount of time for debate would be acceptable to him, Romney replied: “As the Supreme Court once said about a different topic, I’ll know it when I see it.”

While many senators expected Democratic leadership would quickly dispose of the trial through a motion to table or dismissal, which only require a simple majority to pass, a number of vulnerable Senate Democrats haven’t publicly committed to supporting those options. Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) has been the most watched vote on the matter, as he insists he needs to review the articles before he makes a decision after previously saying he’d support a motion to dismiss.

When Tester sat down in the Senate chamber, he motioned to reporters in the gallery that he was indeed reading the copy of the impeachment articles that was on his desk, taking out his reading glasses and waving them around.

Most Republicans were at their seats as Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), an impeachment manager, read the articles aloud, though there were clear absences on the Democratic side. Romney and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a conservative who has repeatedly called for a longer trial, appeared to annotate their copies of the articles.

Senators will reconvene Wednesday afternoon and be sworn in as jurors — and that’s when parliamentary shenanigans could ensue. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly declined to publicly share his plans for the trial aside from wanting to deal with it “expeditiously.”

Schumer and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell also circulated a letter, obtained by POLITICO, to senators on Tuesday afternoon that laid out staffing ground rules and Capitol access for both members and staffers. Perhaps most importantly, the leaders reminded senators that there’s no standing allowed during the proceedings, so “senators are requested to remain in their seats at all times.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Mike Johnson’s plan to put a package of separate foreign aid measures on this floor is running into a familiar hurdle — conservative backlash — and it remains unclear whether Democrats would step in to save his efforts.

The extent of the right-flank rebellion is still uncertain, as Republicans and Democrats alike stress they need to see the details of the complicated rule that would govern debate on a bill aiding Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan before making a final decision. However, it’s clear at this point Johnson would need Democratic support to even start debate on the floor.

“Right now, the rule doesn’t pass with Republicans,” said Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.). “I walked out of there and I am usually pretty good at seeing the board. I don’t see the board right now.”

“The rule that was proposed last night at conference will fail,” said conservative Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), who declined to say if he would vote for it.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) became the most prominent GOP lawmaker to voice outright opposition to rule on the foreign aid package on Tuesday. Other conservatives are rumbling about voting against the measure, even as they haven’t committed yet.

Republican leaders counter that resistance from their own ranks is premature because they’re still working out the full details of the proposal. Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.), for example, referred to a second rule for debate that “hasn’t even been written.”

Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) indicated no plans to pressure Republicans to vote for the rule on the floor, even as the GOP majority has lost a historic number of the usually party-line votes this Congress.

“We don’t whip rules,” he indicated. “It’s a team vote on the Republican side to advance our agenda.”

The fate of the foreign aid package comes even as a second Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), voiced support for Greene’s push to oust Johnson from the speakership — despite staunch opposition to her plan from much of the GOP conference.

Asked directly if they could pass a rule for debate on foreign aid along the outlines of what Johnson is proposing, new Rules Chair Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) replied candidly: “TBD.”

As skeptical as conservatives are of the foreign aid plan itself, some appear more open to supporting the rule. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said in an interview he was “listening” to supporters but that “it’s a little early yet” to know if he would vote to start debate. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said “I don’t believe that this is the right approach” on foreign aid.

One conservative who’s not threatening to tank the rule is Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the powerful Rules panel that’s responsible for setting up floor debate. Norman’s support in committee would at least let the rule get to the floor, though its future is perilous beyondthat.

“I am going to vote for the rule on the committee and I will probably vote for the [rule] on the floor,” Norman said Tuesday. “We have a right to vote on it — I don’t have that right to deny that. On final passage, the devil is in the details.”

If Democrats stepped in to save floor debate on foreign aid, it would be an extraordinary development. The minority party in the House, almost without exception, doesn’t step in to save the agenda of the party in power.

Democrats are staying mum for now, but are cracking open the door to doing so.

“We are in negotiations on exactly what is going to be in this bill from Republicans. Once we see that — once that is finalized — then we are going to move to the process discussion,” said Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.). “But it’s certainly on the table as a possibility.”

So what would it say if Democrats salvaged the foreign aid package?

“One of two things: It says either that we’ve got some people in our party that voted against the rule that are going to continue to push chaos, or leadership has brought a bill to the floor that’s fatally flawed,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

Asked as to which one he thought was at play here, Graves merely smiled: “I’m going to let you choose.”

Nicholas Wu contributed.