This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/us/politics/border-funding-vote.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
House Democrats Move to Rein In Trump’s Immigration Crackdown House Approves Border Aid, Seeking to Curb Trump’s Crackdown
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House pressed toward a vote Tuesday evening on an emergency $4.5 billion humanitarian aid bill to address the plight of migrants at the border, and Democratic leaders appeared confident they had quelled a rebellion in their ranks by adding health and safety requirements for children and adults held by the government. WASHINGTON — A divided House voted on Tuesday to send $4.5 billion in humanitarian aid to the border to address horrific conditions facing a crush of migrants, attaching significant rules on how the money could be spent in the first action by Democrats to rein in President Trump’s immigration crackdown.
A group of liberals and Hispanic-American lawmakers had threatened to withhold their backing for the bill because they feared that the aid package would enable President Trump’s immigration crackdown. But the package, which passed by a vote of 230 to 195 nearly along party lines only after Democratic leaders toughened restrictions on the money to win over liberal skeptics, faces a tough path to enactment. A similar measure with many fewer strings binding Mr. Trump has drawn bipartisan support in the Senate. And the House bill faces a veto threat from White House advisers, who regard the Senate bill as the surest way to speed the needed aid to strapped agencies dealing with the migrant influx.
But House leadership appeared confident that they had secured enough votes by adding additional provisions to oversee spending at detention camps along the border. Hours before the House bill passed, Mr. Trump said he did not like some of the restrictions that lawmakers were seeking to place on the humanitarian funding, but said he badly needed the resources.
The late changes indicated the power that the party’s liberal wing is now willing to wield. Many of those members, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, have said they will not vote to send one cent to the agencies that have carried out the president’s harsh immigration policies — even with strings attached to rein in those policies and even if the package is intended to help vulnerable women and children living in badly overcrowded, squalid shelters. “There are some provisions, I think, that actually are bad for children,” Mr. Trump said in an interview for a coming book about his immigration policies. “There are a couple of points that I would like to get out of it, but I also have to get the money to be able to take care of children and families.”
“I am not planning on voting as it is,” said Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota. “We have a humanitarian crisis, and what we are trying to do does not match that crisis.” But House Democrats said they were finally acting to block what they saw as Mr. Trump’s cruelty on the border.
“The president’s cruel immigration policies that tear apart families and terrorize communities demand the stringent safeguards in this bill to ensure these funds are used for humanitarian needs only — not for immigration raids, not detention beds, not a border wall,” said Representative Nita M. Lowey of New York, the chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The back and forth over the measure highlighted the bitter partisan strife as well as the internal divisions in both parties incited by the president’s immigration agenda, which have been placed in stark relief this week by disturbing images of migrants living in squalor and inhumane conditions. An Associated Press photograph that surfaced on Tuesday of the drowned bodies of a man and his toddler daughter lying face down on the banks of the Rio Grande further inflamed the debate.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California faced a mini-rebellion in her ranks over the aid measure, with many liberals and Hispanic lawmakers arguing that any bill that sent money to the agencies that have carried out Mr. Trump’s harsh immigration tactics would enable his agenda. Democratic leaders won over many of their reluctant colleagues by tacking on additional health and safety standards and requirements for children and adults held by the government, as well as time limits for holding unaccompanied minors.
Republicans were almost uniformly opposed to the bill, which they said contained too many restrictions on the power of immigration agencies and inadequate funding.
Even as Ms. Pelosi worked to quell the furor of outspoken liberals like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, members of the far-right House Freedom Caucus sat down for lunch with Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff who was once a member of the conservative group on Capitol Hill, and Mark Morgan, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement who was just installed as the acting director of Customs and Border Protection, to lobby him to oppose even the Senate’s version.
That aid package, which contains $4.6 billion, would impose many fewer restrictions on the administration, but it does include some constraints on both immigration agencies, such as a limitation on sharing with immigration authorities any information about people who step forward to take custody of unaccompanied migrant children.
In the House, the outcome of the vote remained uncertain until hours before, as leaders and members of the Appropriations Committee haggled over changes needed to win support.
Some liberals remained implacably opposed.
“I don’t slight my colleagues, I don’t think anybody’s making a bad decision here,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “Whenever I have these tough votes, I have to check back in with my district to see how people back home feel, and there was almost universal opposition.”
Others reluctantly went along. Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and a co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she had been persuaded after reaching an agreement on the House floor with Ms. Pelosi and others to include a provision that would require government contractors operating temporary shelters to meet strict standards of care within six months or lose their contract.
“I have tremendous apprehensions about doing so,” Ms. Jayapal said of her decision to support the package. “I am not doing so with a free heart. I am not doing so believing that this is going to solve the problems. I am doing so because I am willing in the name of these children to see if we can do something to improve those conditions at the border.”
[An exclusive from “The Weekly,” a new TV series from The New York Times, on FX and Hulu: Meet the youngest known child taken from his parents at the United States-Mexico border.][An exclusive from “The Weekly,” a new TV series from The New York Times, on FX and Hulu: Meet the youngest known child taken from his parents at the United States-Mexico border.]
Efforts to meet liberal demands will only bolster the White House’s opposition to a spending bill that Mr. Trump initially requested. But they could get the measure through the House — and spare Democrats an embarrassing floor defeat. The changes illustrated the power that members of the party’s liberal wing is now wielding to push legislation to the left. Some said they would not vote to send one cent to the agencies that have carried out the president’s harsh immigration policies, even with strings attached to rein in those policies and even if the package is intended to help vulnerable women and children living in badly overcrowded, squalid shelters.
“The overwhelming majority of House Democrats, including the overwhelming majority of the progressive caucus, will support this legislation, because we understand the urgency of the moment,” Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the chairman of the Democratic caucus, told reporters on Monday. “This week, we have to resolve the humanitarian crisis.” Efforts to meet liberal demands only bolstered House Republican and White House opposition to a spending bill that Mr. Trump initially requested. But they succeeded in getting the measure through the House, sparing Democrats an embarrassing and politically damaging floor defeat.
Maybe so, but with Republicans nearly unified against the bill, the effort to secure enough Democratic votes was painstaking. Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and a chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Speaker Nancy Pelosi had likely secured her vote when she agreed to include a provision that would require government contractors operating temporary migrant shelters to meet strict standards of care within six months or lose their contract. Ms. Jayapal said she would wait to see the final bill’s language but anticipated that the agreement would bring many of her colleagues on board. “I’d hoped this would provide an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan manner,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee. “Instead, this bill tacked further to the left, to satisfy the liberals in the Democratic caucus, who are unwilling to do anything that meets President Trump’s request.”
“If this final language is what we’ve agreed to, then I plan to support it,” she told reporters. “I have tremendous apprehensions about doing so. I am not doing so with a free heart. I am not doing so believing that this is going to solve the problems. I am doing so because I am willing in the name of these children to see if we can do something to improve those conditions at the border.” During a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Tuesday morning at their campaign headquarters near the Capitol, Ms. Pelosi made an impassioned plea for the bill, arguing that it would send a signal to the world that Democrats want to help suffering children at the border, according to a senior Democratic aide who described her remarks on the condition of anonymity. Ms. Pelosi also warned that allowing their divisions over the measure to sink it would play into the president’s hands.
During a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Tuesday morning at their campaign headquarters near the Capitol, Ms. Pelosi flexed her own muscle. Making an impassioned plea for support, she argued that passage would send a signal to the world that Democrats want to help suffering children at the border, according to a senior Democratic aide who described her remarks on the condition of anonymity. Ms. Pelosi also warned that allowing their divisions over the measure to sink it would play into Mr. Trump’s hands.
[The story behind a photograph of two migrants found dead in the Rio Grande.]
“The president would love for this bill to go down today,” Ms. Pelosi told Democrats, according to the aide. “A vote against this bill is a vote for Donald Trump and his inhumane, outside-the-circle-of-civilized attitude toward the children.”“The president would love for this bill to go down today,” Ms. Pelosi told Democrats, according to the aide. “A vote against this bill is a vote for Donald Trump and his inhumane, outside-the-circle-of-civilized attitude toward the children.”
Then the speaker, who is well known for her flair for tamping down internal rebellions in her ranks, asked a room packed with Democrats whether anyone had a problem with the legislation. Nobody spoke up, the aide said. She concluded the session by saying she expected “very few no’s” and urging those thinking of opposing the bill to bring their questions to her and other House leaders.
Later, she repeated to reporters a point she had made to lawmakers behind closed doors, saying that the bill was a spending measure, not a policy plan.Later, she repeated to reporters a point she had made to lawmakers behind closed doors, saying that the bill was a spending measure, not a policy plan.
“This isn’t an immigration bill,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s an appropriations bill to meet the needs of the children.”“This isn’t an immigration bill,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It’s an appropriations bill to meet the needs of the children.”
Critics of the package huddled with Ms. Pelosi on Monday night in her Capitol office to air their complaints, and some emerged saying changes would be needed to garner their support. Leaders met into the night to discuss those modifications and came up with a handful that they planned to add to the bill before it reached the floor on Tuesday night. Critics of the package had huddled with Ms. Pelosi on Monday night in her Capitol office to air their complaints, and some emerged saying changes would be needed to garner their support. Leaders met into the night to discuss those modifications and came up with a handful that they planned to add to the bill before it reached the floor on Tuesday night.
Democrats plan to add language that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene, and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and adults in custody. Another provision would require the secretary of health and human services to specify which requirements are being temporarily waived to deal with a sudden influx of migrants. That amendment would limit the detention-center stay of any unaccompanied child to 90 days unless written notification is submitted to Congress attesting that no other facilities are available. Democrats ultimately added language that would require Customs and Border Protection to establish plans and protocols to deliver medical care, improve nutrition and hygiene, and train personnel to ensure the health and safety of children and adults in custody. Another provision would ask the secretary of health and human services to specify which requirements are being temporarily waived to deal with a sudden influx of migrants. That amendment would limit the detention-center stay of any unaccompanied child to 90 days unless written notification is submitted to Congress attesting that no other facilities are available.
Democrats also intended to add requirements for translators at Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Citizenship and Immigration Services. An additional $2 million would go toward the immigration court help desk program, which helps provide assistance to immigrants in removal proceedings. Democrats also attached requirements for translators at Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The White House has already threatened that Mr. Trump would veto the House bill because of restrictions that were included even before those new measures.
“I’d hoped this would provide an opportunity to work together in a bipartisan manner,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee, at a hearing to approve the additions to the bill. “Instead this bill tacked farther to the left to satisfy the liberals in the Democratic caucus, who are unwilling to do anything that meets President Trump’s request.”
Senate Republicans and Democrats came together last week to draft a $4.6 billion version of the humanitarian aid package that also includes limitations on the use of the funds and several other conditions.Senate Republicans and Democrats came together last week to draft a $4.6 billion version of the humanitarian aid package that also includes limitations on the use of the funds and several other conditions.
With House Republicans almost uniformly opposed to the stricter House measure, the fate of the entire effort remains uncertain. If the changes Ms. Pelosi settled on win over enough Democrats to push the package through the House on Tuesday night, it would still have to be reconciled with the Senate’s bill before being sent to Mr. Trump for his signature. With House Republicans almost uniformly opposed to the stricter House measure, the fate of the entire effort remains uncertain.
Ms. Pelosi has argued that to give the House leverage in any such negotiation with the Senate, Democrats have to show the broadest possible support for the bill. Some lawmakers said the changes that leaders had agreed to over the last 24 hours persuaded them to support the measure. Ms. Pelosi had argued that to give the House leverage in any such negotiation with the Senate, Democrats had to show the broadest possible support for the bill. But the nearly party-line vote only underlined the partisan split over the bill.
“I was on the fence, but that makes me feel much better, so I’m leaning to supporting it,” said Representative Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Democrat of Florida. “For me, specifically, it was the time frame that we had to set for reunification.” “I wish we could pass ours and see it go from there,” said Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, who forged the bipartisan deal with Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the panel. “That’s an easy way out for everybody — just pass that.”
Lawmakers from districts along the border have been among the strongest proponents of the bill, arguing that Democrats must put aside their antipathy for Mr. Trump’s immigration policies and focus on alleviating a humanitarian debacle. That bill faced obstacles as well. Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, wants a vote on language that would require that the emergency aid bill be paid for by cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. And Republicans fear that allowing one would give Democrats the opportunity to propose their own modifications, such as language to restore development aid to Central American countries that Mr. Trump has revoked, according to a senior leadership aide who detailed the deliberations on the condition of anonymity.
“There are legitimate concerns about trust with the administration, and there is a legitimate fear that we are funding a dysfunctional system,” said Representative Veronica Escobar, Democrat of Texas, whose El Paso district abuts the border. “But we have to meet our obligations as human beings and fund the needs for the care of these children.” Still, Mr. Shelby said he was optimistic about the prospects for the measure.
“I believe we’ll pass it before the week’s out,” he said.