In Senate Hearing, Booker and Harris Show Their Styles – By David Catanese (usnews.com) / Jan 16 2018
As the newest members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, they had to wait to question Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Capitol Hill.
But as politically ambitious Democrats – and two of the only three African-Americans ever to serve on the committee – the performances Tuesday of Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sen. Kamala Harris of California were among the most anticipated.
Seated next to each other, with only a few feet between them, Booker and Harris each conveyed personal rage about not only the alleged disparaging comment made by President Donald Trump regarding African countries, but the inability of Nielsen to recall the remark.
“I did not hear that word used,” Nielsen said when asked whether Trump employed the vulgarity “shithole” to characterize countries he viewed unfavorably for immigration. The president also reportedly expressed a preference for immigrants from the Scandinavian country of Norway.
How Booker and Harris went about addressing Nielsen’s response and the broader controversy engulfing the president underscored the contrasting approaches of the two potential White House aspirants who may each seek a face-off with Trump in 2020.
While Booker invoked seething emotional rage that easily captured the eye of cable news producers, Harris chose prosecutorial precision that some might say proved more edifying on substance.
Each had roughly 10 minutes. Booker posited two questions. Harris asked 23.
Booker claimed he had “tears of rage” when Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois relayed the president’s insulting comments to him. He spoke about how pervasive the Oval Office slight reverberated in communities of color, referencing his recent travels to Puerto Rico, Atlanta and Newark, New Jersey.
Nielsen interrupted Booker’s soliloquy when he claimed she said Trump preferred Norwegian immigrants because they’re “so hard-working.”
“I didn’t say …, ” Nielsen contested before Booker abruptly cut her off with: “Excuse me, let me finish.”
“Happy to,” the secretary replied, rolling her eyes.
It was clear then that Booker wasn’t interested in eliciting answers. He was there to hammer home a point on a rare national platform: that this administration has an alarming pattern of implicitly abetting racism.
Liberals lapped it up, while conservatives blasted it as over-the-top acting.
“For you not to feel that hurt and that pain, and to dismiss some of the questions of my colleagues, saying, ‘I’ve already answered that line of questions’ when tens of millions of Americans are hurting right now because … they’re worried about what happened in the White House,” he said, jabbing his finger on the dais and in the air. “That’s unacceptable to me.”
Booker was out for hearts. Harris, meanwhile, sought to probe minds.
The Golden State freshman divided her time allotment neatly, spending the first half reinforcing Booker’s turmoil, albeit more serenely, and then turning to a series of pointed questions to place Nielsen on the defensive.
Channeling her experience as a district attorney, Harris ran through inquiries on what’s become a personal crusade to protect the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, focusing on what Nielsen said in their previous private fall meeting and the secretary’s public confirmation hearing.
Like a dogged prosecutor, Harris sought to pin Nielsen down on prior commitments – and to shame her if they hadn’t been carried out.
Harris recalled Nielsen said she would issue guidance to agents stating that DACA recipients – young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children – would not be enforcement priorities.
Had she followed through?
After a back-and-forth and stating that it was already clear, Nielsen finally conceded, “I personally have not, no.”
Harris also pressed Nielsen on whether she had made clear to department employees, as she said Nielsen had committed to do, that information of DACA recipients would not be shared for enforcement purposes.
Nielsen said that policy already existed and that she’d discussed it in multiple meetings.
“So you’ve not done that. That’s the short answer,” Harris said, after asking if Nielsen had issued a written directive to make the policy clear.
“Why would I do it again? It already exists,” Nielsen replied.
Harris then wanted to know if the Department of Homeland Security was prioritizing equally the removal of people from the country with no criminal history and those with felony convictions.
Nielsen said the department prioritizes criminal convictions as well as those with “final orders of removal” – essentially encompassing those who may be being deported for another reason.
“Ma’am, we’re going to enforce the law,” Nielsen said.
Harris got Nielsen to consider committing to providing direct notice to all DACA recipients about their ability to renew their applications in the wake of a federal judge’s temporary ruling blocking the Trump administration’s ending of the program. The senator also made the secretary aware that the government’s website included information that requests for childhood arrivals weren’t being accepted.
“Are you aware that that’s on your website right now?” Harris asked.
“No, I am not,” Nielsen replied. “We will clarify.”
These were small concessions in a much larger debate over immigration that has members of both parties scrambling toward a solution.
But in just a few short minutes, Harris demonstrated her granular knowledge of an issue of utmost importance to her California constituents, as well as to a broader base of national progressives closely monitoring the moves of their allies.
Booker showed political savvy in concocting the 15-second sound bite that would play repeatedly on television; Harris demonstrated an authentic yet urgent commitment to an issue that likely will still remain at the forefront for years to come.
Their own press releases issued after the hearing even conveyed their stylistic differences. “Booker Rebukes DHS Secretary,” the New Jerseyan’s recap touted. The Californian’s statement read, “Harris Presses DHS Secretary.”
The difference wasn’t lost on keen political observers.
Harris “is such a great questioner,” longtime Democratic strategist Paul Begala noted. “Too many senators speechify; she gets to the facts.
PB/TK – I hate televised Congressional hearing as they become more campaign stop theatrics then substance. Corey, don’t stereotype yourself as the angry black man, you’re better then that. Enough of the ‘shithole’ or ‘shithouse’ (since some say the latter was the actual descriptive) debate as whatever was said should’ve stayed inside the room, but for those that love media attention, ya got it
