Congress Punts DHS Funding Bill For Seven Days
Another lesson in incompetence in governing from House Republicans.
Repeating a pattern that we’ve seen from the House of Representatives for four years now, the issue of funding the Department of Homeland Security has been kicked down the road, for seven days:
A partial government shutdown was narrowly avoided late Friday evening as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made a surprise move to back legislation funding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for one week.
Pelosi’s support helped Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) move the one-week bill through the House in a 357-60 vote just after 10 p.m., with 55 Republicans and 5 Democrats voting against it. The Senate passed the one-week funding bill in a voice vote.
President Obama signed the bill just before midnight.
The eleventh-hour votes in Congress had forced the Obama administration to begin preparations for a partial government shutdown, with DHS releasing a 47-page contingency plan spelling out which employees would have been “essential” and forced to work without pay at agencies like the Coast Guard, Secret Service and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Earlier in the day, House Democratic leaders had whipped their members against legislation that would have funded DHS for three weeks, and the bill failed 203-224.
The defeat of the three-week bill was a humiliating defeat for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and left his leadership team scrambling for a path forward as a bloc of their conservative members refused to vote for any funding bill that did not reverse President Obama’s executive actions on deferred deportations for illegal immigrants.
Pelosi came to the rescue late Friday evening, sending a letter to Democrats urging them to vote for a one-week continuing resolution (CR) of Homeland Security funding without any immigration riders.
“Thank you for your cooperation on the vote earlier today. Our unity was a strong statement that the Department of Homeland Security must be fully funded,” Pelosi wrote in the letter to Democrats. “We are asking you once again to help advance passage of the Senate passed, long-term funding of DHS by voting in favor of a 7-day patch that will be on suspension in the House tonight.”
Pelosi announced the letter in a 90-second press conference in the Capitol, where she was flanked by all of her top lieutenants but didn’t take questions and didn’t explain why she and the Democrats — who were adamantly opposed to a three-week extension — suddenly reversed course to accept the one-week deal just a few hours later.
The Democratic leaders declined to comment on whether their agreement to the seven-day deal came with assurances that the House would vote on the Senate’s “clean” DHS bill providing funding through September.
Asked that question, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) eluded it.
“You would be right to try to analyze why we would do what we’re doing,” Hoyer said, declining further comment.
Pelosi in her letter assured Democrats that, “Your vote tonight will assure that we will vote for full funding next week.”
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel firmly denied that a deal was cut with Democrats on the clean funding bill.
“We did not make any such ‘deal’ or promise,” Steel said.
GOP leaders, for their part, were mum on the next steps. The one-week funding bill only pushes the fight into next week, when Republicans had hoped to focus on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of Congress.
So basically, Congress accomplished absolutely nothing yesterday. The House’s version of the DHS funding bills, which include restrictions on the DAPA deportation deferral program announced by President Obama in November, could not get past the sixty vote threshold in the Senate. House Republicans proved themselves to be incapable of passing a three week Continuing Resolution earlier in the day yesterday, although at least in part that was due to the fact that the vast majority of House Democrats voted against the bill. So, as usual, we ended up with a last minute vote on a Friday night that did nothing but kick the can down the road for seven days. As noted above, Democrats supported this extension because, they claimed, they had an agreement from the House Republican Leadership that a “clean” Continuing Resolution that would fund DHS through the end of the year. While John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, and other members of the leadership team have been quiet since last night but several House Republicans who have spoken publicly have said that there is no such deal, although they would not necessarily be in a position to know one way or the other. Additionally, many have suggested that Boehner would be opening himself up to a leadership challenge if he were to put a “clean” bill on the floor.
In any case, we’ll likely be seeing this entire debate go down to the wire again next week, probably to next Friday night just as we saw unfold this week. Whether that results in another Continuing Resolution or, finally, a “clean” bill is something only time will tell. At the very least, though, we’re getting yet another demonstration of how dysfunctional Congress has become, thanks largely to a minority in the House Republican Caucus that has no interest at all in governing.
The fact that the GOP is truly divided into two factions undercuts the way the House has normally operated. This is both very interesting and also problematic (if one assume that basic legislation needs to be passed).
Either we are going to remain in this type of pattern or the basic behaviors in the chamber are going to have to change (i.e., the negotiations will have to be between the mainline Reps and the Dem minority). Really, the Tea Party faction of the GOP is acting more and more like a third party in the context of the House at least (and this undercuts the notion of majority control).
Imagine how effective Congress would be with a three (or more) political system.
Workers are not being forced to work without pay next week, so that’s an accomplishment. Families finances are not being disrupted, etc.
But, as a liberal, seeing a congress in the hands of this Republican Party, I think congress getting nothing done is a good thing. The longer the Republicans fight with themselves, the less time they have to work on things that they agree on.
I was going to say something about how the Republicans should consider the stress this crap puts on DHS employees and their families, but then I realized that’s probably a delightful bonus because the only people Republicans hate more than welfare recipients are government employees.
OK, too snarky by half, perhaps, but it’s probably safe to say the Republicans don’t really care much about DHS employees and their families.
@Bob @ Youngstown:
Multiple parties would create its own problem, to be sure. However, the problem right now is that we have an institution whose rules and norms assume 1 majority party is supposed to run it, but instead that party is not capable of functioning in that fashion. There is currently a disjuncture between institutional norms and expectations and the reality on the ground.
A somewhat poor analogy: it is like trying to run a spread-option offense with a pure pocket passer.
@Steven L. Taylor: yes, actually it does look a lot like a fragile coalition type parliamentary government.
Another point: if there really were three parties, there would have to have been formal negotiations to create the majority, which would have included certain agreements on legislation and other political matters. As it stands the “coalition” (scare quotes necessary) is organic insofar as the Tea Party faction are all officially Republicans and are automatically part of the majority (no negotiations required).
This is an important distinction if one wishes to understand legislative dynamics.
As Doug notes, establishment GOP and the Democrats could produce a functioning, non-partisan majority at any point. Democrats could even offer to support Mr. Boehner’s speakership for the next two years to the extent that GOP defectors made it necessary. This would effectively marginalize the Tea Party and give us back our government.
But Boehner is a weak and cowardly man not capable of thinking outside the box. So we really have no Congress. Republicans alternately rant about Mr. Obama as a tyrant or, in the case of the AUMF, a pansy, but Congress could have all its prerogatives and power effortlessly restored – but for Mr. Boehner’s weakness and incompetence.
I’m sure that point wasn’t lost on Pelosi…no wonder she made the “deal” that she did…
So Doug is libertarian who complains that the Government is not doing enough.
If the Republicans repealed parts of the Patriot act he would be against it.
…Oh, yes. Let us fear another shutdown. FEAR it!
Well, c’est la vida, or that’s seikatsu, right?
This is what ‘The People” voted for, and so we can definitely look forward to more episodes of “Wisdom of The People” don’t you?
The only problem with a congressional punt: There’s always a touchback, they outlawed the punt return
Can’t we just change the channel and watch something else? Please? I’ve seen this episode before.
The major incompetence of the Republicans is that they cannot figure out how to deliver for the donor class without giving the Obama Administration a 100% win for the policy of amnesty and open borders.
What is amazing is how no one in the leadership of the Republicans ever mentions that President Obama is putting illegal aliens ahead of voters and citizens.
@michael reynolds:
Well, yes, except for the its powers the executive wishes to keep.
@superdestroyer:
I guess even the leadership of the Republicans has a limit to the degree of bullshit they’re willing to produce…
@lounsbury:
How does the status quo in Congress look like a parliamentarian system? There is virtually no disagree on any issue among all of the Democrats in Congress. Only the Republicans seem to have disagree on issue of policy and governance since there is a major split between the cheap labor, big government Republicans, the social conservative Republicans, and the small government Republicans.
The leading indicator in politics should be leaning of the current students of the Ivy Leagues. Since over 90% of them are liberal Democrats and since they permit no policy disagreements among themselves, it should be easy to see what Congress will look like in the future.
@Mikey:
President Obama is willing to veto any funding bill that does not let him institute amnesty and the Obama Administration is willing to have a partial shut down of DHS in order to implement amnesty. How else can anyone interpret this policy except as putting illegal aliens ahead of Americans. Or maybe it could be said that the Obama Administration is putting future automatic Democratic voters head of current Republican voters?
What Reynolds said is actually the key take away. The Republicans will only allow important legislation through if it can pass with a majority of Republican votes. In other words, if 85% of Republicans support something and they can get a sprinkling of D’s to bring them over the threshold – Boehner will not let it come to a vote. Every important piece of legislation has to carry something like 90-95% of the Republicans (and BTW, F the D’s). So all the crazies must be catered to.
@superdestroyer: Nobody is “implementing amnesty.” The word “amnesty” is where the bullshit resides.
The GOP’s stupid screwing around with funding X but not subset Y and the attendant uncertainty in funding, budgetary, and personnel management are already doing damage to DHS and consequently America’s national security. But the GOP doesn’t give a shit about that as long as they can put on a big show of keeping the dirty brown people out.
@superdestroyer: “How else can anyone interpret this policy except as putting illegal aliens ahead of Americans.”
It’s actually pretty easy. Unless you’re a racist idiot who spends his life hiding under his bed because icky dark people are coming for him. Then I can see how you’ll have problems.
Somehow the GOP stumbled into the worst outcome for them. They look incompetent and still don’t give their tea party base anything. It doesn’t really make any sense to keep throwing these ineffectual tantrums.
@Mikey:
Giving millions of illegal aliens permanent legal residence in the U.S. and setting them to become citizens as soon as the Democrats regain control the Congress is, by definition, amnesty. I guess all of the claims that the illegal alien amnesty in 1980’s was suppose to be the last amnesty have to be forgotten. Also, that this amnesty will be a magnet for more illegal aliens is also not to be noticed.
@wr:
I guess calling someone a racist is easier than explaining why the Obama Administration will do anything to give amnesty to illegal aliens. As long as the Republicans will always be blamed for any shutdown and be blamed for any veto, then I guess it makes sense to put illegal aliens ahead of citizens.
@superdestroyer:
Amnesty, amnesty, amnesty…
If the Republicans really cared about illegal immigration, they could pass a mostly clean funding resolution, increasing the penalties for hiring illegal aliens to include real jail time and adding funding for enforcement.
I think that would be a much, much harder thing for Democrats to vote against, it throws an anti-immigrant bone to their base, and it punishes mostly wealthy white employers rather than brown people so it shouldn’t alienate the Latino community as much.
@superdestroyer:
http://www.msnbc.com/up/watch/chaos-reigns-on-capitol-hill-405885507849
Congressman Mo Brooks (AL) made your points on ‘Up With Steve Kornacki’ this AM. I hope the link works so you can see how stupid it sounds.
Boehner couldn’t find his own butt unless Pelosi helped him.
Counting votes is not difficult. Denny Hastert would be spinning in his grave but, alas, he is too stout even in death; he’s merely weeble-wobbling back-and-forth very rapidly.
So in this week’s episode, America stands on the brink of destruction while the GOP knaves and fools dither in hapless confusion. Then, when all hope seems lost, out of the chaos and confusion strides Nancy Smash! to save the day.
Yeah, I like this episode. Can’t wait till next week, when John Boehner stands up to give a stemwinder speech with his fly down.
@Mikey: The big problem is ISIS. That is where the focus needs to be: keeping them out, but they are already here. This no time to tie up the funds. ISIS is running wild.
@Gustopher:
Likelihood – zero
@Tyrell:
The big problem is ISIS.
Today, ISIS is to the Middle East as the IRA (at its zenith) was to Western Europe. Militant, sectarian, troublesome, indiscriminately violent, funding from shadowy foreign sources, controlling a surprisingly large population / geographic area, but, ultimately completely, utterly unable to “win.”
@lounsbury:
But with a major and extremely significant difference: there is no penalty for voting against the coalition. In a parliamentary system the whole point of a coalition is to vote together–if they fail to do so the coalition will cease to be and a new majority will have to formed (or early elections called),
This is part of my point: our current circumstances have some of the major negative to be associated with a weak coalition in a parliamentary system without any of the advantages of a formal coalition agreement (or, really, the basic logic of a coalition which recognizes that there are formal constituent parts).
@superdestroyer:
When you say things like ” The real question is why do so many wonks, pundits, and political writers keep writing as if politics will continue as if everyone is white.” as you did in the thread on my post the other day, what else should you be called? You think everything is about race and you think that whites are in some way superior to non-whites (as evidenced by the fact that you clearly think the rise of non-whites is a problem).
Really, what else should you be called? I am not sure what is more tiresome, your racist rants or your objection to the fact that you are called out on them.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Specifically, voting against leadership does not get one kicked out the party, does not lose one coveted committee assignments, does not reduce the chance that legislation one prefers will be addressed. In short, there is no penalty (and, indeed, all the perqs of being in the majority remain in place).
It is important to understand that this is not the way parliamentary government works.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Not to mention the added benefit to the Tea Party bunch of throwing red meat to the politically active and donating fringe.
@Bob @ Youngstown:
Such a bill would be vetoed by the Obama Adminstration. Anything other than amnesty and an increased in legal immigration will be vetoed. The Democrats want nothing other than complete victory in the form of amnesty for current illegal aliens, a doubling of legal immigration, and a clear signal that there will be more amnesties in the future.
The Democrats had between 2007 and 2011 to pass increased immigration enforcement and did not. The Democrats will filibuster any form of increased enforcement (the arguments will be racism, profiling, and your papers please).
The real question for the future is what will the U.S. be like as the Democrats regain control the Congress when the free movement of people between the U.S. and the third world is accomplished.
@superdestroyer:
It is not allowed to ask such a question.
@Another Mike: Oh, please. Of course it’s “allowed” to ask it. But you have to be ready for people to point out it is baseless claptrap couched in xenophobia rather than any actual call for allowing “the free movement of people between the U. S. and the third world.”
@Mikey:
Well, of course, I did not mean it literally. “Officer, is this the correct way to point a gun at a cop?” Sure one could ask that, but it is not a good idea. And some questions are not a good idea to ask here either. You sort of proved that point. We do not discuss questions that go against established orthodoxy.
@Another Mike: Dude, there’s a big difference between “going against established orthodoxy” and posing a question that’s plainly nonsense.
There are plenty of legitimate discussions to be had about American immigration policy, but anything that asserts there is some call for free movement between the U. S. and the third world is not one of them. It would be like discussing the texture of a unicorn’s fur.
@Another Mike:
Not allowed by whom?
Further:
a) I know of no proposal that would allow for open borders (as such, dealing with reality would be nice).
and
b) It is worth noting that in the past we did have open borders, for all practical purposes, and the world did not end (19th century).
Moreover, when the border was more porous (prior to the mid 1980s) we did not have the same number of undocumented residents because it was easier for laborers to come to the US and then return to Mexico. One of the grand ironies of this debate is that enhanced border security (the Holt Grail of the anti-immigrant movement) is one of the major reasons we have huge undocumented population.
I will agree btw, with Mikey, these fears of the “third world” do sound rather xenophobic.
@Steven L. Taylor:
The borders were not quite open, but as you said, for all practical purposes. You still had to be listed on a ship’s manifest and be checked upon debarkation, but that was pretty loose some of the time. But there was a reason for all this immigration, the land was wide open for settlement. You can check at the BLM website and sort of determine how much government land was being sold in your state and the timeframe involved.
Also, I did not take the phrase “free movement” literally. Obviously there is no free movement, but sometimes it does seem like there is virtually free movement. The movement seems to be more dependent on the desires of the potential immigrants to be here than on the desire of the sovereign power to have them. Stating it more plainly, they come if they want to and we are stuck with them.
And the other part of his question was what will the country be like, if this continues.
@Another Mike:
What does this mean to you?
(This sounds xenophobic. It also seems to ignore the way in which our history has developed, especially in relationship to immigration).
BTW in terms of history, the first major limitation on immigration was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act.
Otherwise, we get things like an 1875 that banned prostitutes and convicts or laws in 1903 and 1907 that banned epileptics, vagrants, polygamists, political “radicals,” certain handicaps and unattended children.
@Another Mike: “It is not allowed to ask such a question.”
Sure it is. In fact, it’s hotly debated among those who have totally exhausted their “could Superman beat up Iron Man” conversations.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Xenophobia and nativism are nothing new. Know-Nothing Party, anyone?
“No Irish Need Apply” indeed …
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose
@Another Mike: “We do not discuss questions that go against established orthodoxy.”
By which he means “questions which depend on a total belief in a paranoid racist fantasy.”
@HarvardLaw92: Indeed.
@Steven L. Taylor: Tea Party caucus = Dixiecans. Suppose Boehner’s ever read a biography of Sam Rayburn?
@Another Mike:
So in the absence of a rational, coherent, fact based argument, you are going with “conservative are victims”
Got it.
Off-topic. Taking all bets.
Do you think so little of our culture and our ability to assimilate others into our culture? How pathetic…
@anjin-san:
Some topics really are not to be discussed on OTB, which is a defender of establishment orthodoxy. Anyone who offends it will be hit with a broadside of racist, xenophobic, nativist, know-nothing, paranoid claptrap, and that is just from the nicer folks.
“Unless you’re reading the New York Times, listening to NPR, or watching PBS as your sole sources of news, you’re probably better off ignoring the news media altogether if your goal is to understand the world around you. ”
If it is not mainstream establishment orthodoxy, you are wasting your time and ours.
@Another Mike:
(1) I know of no topic that is avoided on OTB.
(2) What is interesting about OTB is that conservatives regularly claim to be victims of mean liberals who regularly post here. Compared to the hostile tone that inhabits many conservative blogs, the tone here is, for-the-most-part, benign.
(3) By far the preponderance of “racist, xenophobic, nativist, know-nothing, paranoid claptrap” comes from the Right side of the political spectrum. It’s not close, either.
@superdestroyer:
You are now making up your own facts. I am a Democrat and a liberal and I oppose open borders and unlimited immigration. Those are not, and never have been, Democratic positions. In point of fact, they are Libertarian positions.
Obsessed as you are by this topic you surely know all this. Which means you aren’t merely misinformed, but a liar.
@Another Mike:
Cry me a river. When I was talking to a few conservatives the other day about net neutrality, this is what I got.
“FU you commie bastard”
“You are probably an atheist, so you are going to BURN IN HELL”
And so on.
This is because I support net neutrality.
@Another Mike:
You are rather clearly free to discuss what you would like on these discussion fora, so your claim really doesn’t hold water.
If you you complaining that the authors of the site don’t write what you want to read, there is a simple solution: start your own blog.
Beyond that, I really don’t see what you are complaining about. You asked your question above and there was no ban as a result. Further, if you wish to demonstrate that, in fact, there is a serious open border proposal on the table (and likely to be considered), please do so.
@wr: Superman would clearly beat Iron Man.
Also, Clark Kent is an illegal alien who has taken some American’s job as a journalist, because of lax border security. See the seminal essay on the subject “Man Of Steel, Borders Of Tissue”.
@superdestroyer:
Republican congress critters don’t possess the courage to vote on legislation that would call for jail time for employers who hire undocumented persons.
@Gustopher:
Did that come before or after “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex”?
@michael reynolds:
YOu should look up the position of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. They propose to do away with the need for human smugglng by making it very easy to migrate to the U.S. Also, what should everyone call a policy where of allowing everyone who makes it to the U.S. and does not commit a felony to stay. If it is not amnesty, then what is it.
The question that every Democrat needs to answer is: there are over 100 million people who want to migrate to the U.S., how many should be kept out that what should be done to keep them out?
@Bob @ Youngstown:
Any bill that forces employers to become de facto agents of CPB and ICE will quickly be called a profiling law and will quickly be ruled unconstitutional. I know that progressives love to propose vague laws but what would an employer do to comply with the law and not be accused of profiling and racism? Also, how would employers comply with the law without being accuse of fascist for asking people for their papers.
Giving progressives hatred of government ID’s, I doubt that employer enforcement will ever occur.
@Steven L. Taylor:
It is not how I think, it is how virtually everyone in the U.S. lives their lives. Virtually everyone progressive in the Obama Adminisration either pays the money to send their children to elite prep schools where over 50% of the student body is White (and the second largest demographic is Asian) or they spend the money to live in an expensive suburb where once gain their children can go to majority white schools. Look at white flight from cities such as Detroit, Baltimore, Newark, St Louis, and DC. Look at the different at internal to the U.S. migration patterns are affected by race and ethnicity.
Discussing government policy and governance while refusing to acknowledge is just a way of say that one does not really care if the policy will be successful.
@superdestroyer:
Existing US law requires companies to employ only individuals who may legally work in the United States. Does that law make the employer a ‘defacto agent of the CPG or ICE’ ?
If I were a congressional legislator and insisted on enforcement of the current law, I shouldn’t be surprised that the employers who provided financial support for my reelection campaign would be hesitant to donate if they were being fined or imprisoned for their non-compliance with laws that I am encouraging enforcement.
reiterating:” Republican congress critters don’t possess the courage to vote on legislation that would call for jail time for employers who hire undocumented persons”.
@HarvardLaw92: “hasta la vista, baby !!”
Definitely a One Party State. Definitely. Ten minutes to Wapner
@Bob @ Youngstown:
The paperwork required to comply with the regulation is minimal and as seen by the 10 million plus illegal aliens working in the U.S. has little effect.
What would be a better strategy is for the government to use big data to catch identify thieves. Check to see is SSN’s are being used in multiple states. Compare IRS records with SSN records with immigraiton records. Use modern computing power to catch people whose identities are fake instead of depending on the manager of the local car wash to do it for the government.
In the long run, the law will either be ineffective due to there being multiple ways to cheat or if the law actually starts putting firms out of business, then the screams of profiling will be heard.
@Gustopher: “Also, Clark Kent is an illegal alien who has taken some American’s job as a journalist, because of lax border security.”
And as a superhero!
@superdestroyer:
Which brings me back to my original point: Do you think that enforcing real penalties (like jail type) might induce employers to comply with the existing law?
You say their are 10 million undocumented aliens working in the US. Probably most are working for an employer who has not verified their “legal” status.
But do you really think that employers want to reduce the supply of cheap laborers???
@superdestroyer:
Um, check everyone equally? I know this is hard for you to understand, but if you run the exact same procedural check on everyone single potential employee, you are not profiling. Look up the definition of the word “profiling” – it might help with understanding the concept. Implicit in your argument is the fact that since they are NOT doing that as boilerplate hiring practices, they are venerable to accusations. The question is why are they doing it for some and not others?
We SHOULD be checking everyone. We SHOULD be running background checks to prevent fraud. But for some strange reason, conservatives really really don’t like the idea of the Government doing that. They don’t want a National ID- something about tyranny. They don’t want the Government checking THEM, just those people over there. For something like that to work, everyone needs to be included in the database and process: Juan, Jose, Jacqui, Jiang-Li, John and Josephina (aka Grandma from Tulsa). Grandma’s gonna throw a fit, however, the same why they throw a fit when TSA pats them down or pulls them aside for a random screening. You want this? It’s for everyone, not just certain people.
And no one’s going to know a damn thing about anything unless the car wash manager starts looking into it. Business has a responsibility as the front line to check. They don’t get to pass the buck on this, no matter how much they want to reap the benefits while doing as little work as possible.