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/2019/06/27/us/politics/border-funding-immigration.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
House Passes Senate Border Bill in Striking Defeat for Pelosi House Passes Senate Border Bill in Striking Defeat for Pelosi
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday passed a Senate humanitarian aid package without any of the House’s strict protections for migrant children in overcrowded border shelters after Speaker Nancy Pelosi capitulated to Republicans and Democratic moderates in a striking defeat. WASHINGTON — Congress sent President Trump a $4.6 billion humanitarian aid package on Thursday after Speaker Nancy Pelosi capitulated to Republicans and Democratic moderates and dropped her insistence on stronger protections for migrant children in overcrowded border shelters.
The vote came after a startling display of Democratic disarray and was an unusual setback for Ms. Pelosi, who has been adept at navigating the political complexities of a caucus split by powerful progressive and moderate factions that often work at cross purposes. On Thursday, their priorities clashed in spectacular fashion, and the speaker — who had put her reputation on the line, calling herself a “lioness” out to protect children as she held out for stronger safeguards in migrant facilities that house them — had to accept defeat. The vote came after a striking display of Democratic disunity and was an unusual setback for Ms. Pelosi. Until Thursday, she had proved adept at navigating the complexities of a caucus rived by powerful progressive and moderate factions that often work at cross purposes. But their priorities clashed, the liberal flank was vanquished and the speaker — who had put her reputation on the line, calling herself a “lioness” out to protect children as she held out for stronger protections in the migrant facilities that house them — grudgingly had to accept defeat.
The final vote, 305 to 102, included far more Republicans in favor, 176, than Democrats, 129. The final vote, 305 to 102, included far more Republicans in favor, 176, than Democrats, 129. It left House liberals furious.
“In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill,” Ms. Pelosi said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers. “As we pass the Senate bill, we will do so with a battle cry as to how we go forward to protect children in a way that truly honors their dignity and worth.”“In order to get resources to the children fastest, we will reluctantly pass the Senate bill,” Ms. Pelosi said in a letter to Democratic lawmakers. “As we pass the Senate bill, we will do so with a battle cry as to how we go forward to protect children in a way that truly honors their dignity and worth.”
Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would voluntarily abide by some of the restrictions and rules that she had sought, including notifying lawmakers within 24 hours after the death of a migrant child in government custody, and placing a 90-day time limit on children spending time in temporary intake facilities, according to a person familiar with the discussions. Her retreat came after Vice President Mike Pence gave Ms. Pelosi private assurances that the administration would abide by some of the restrictions she had sought. They included a requirement to notify lawmakers within 24 hours after the death of a migrant child in government custody, and a 90-day time limit on children spending time in temporary intake facilities, according to a person familiar with the discussions.
[‘Don’t Talk to Her’: We Toured the Troubled Border Station Housing Migrant Children.][‘Don’t Talk to Her’: We Toured the Troubled Border Station Housing Migrant Children.]
A last-minute revolt by centrist lawmakers ensured defeat for Ms. Pelosi’s efforts to toughen the conditions in the Senate’s $4.6 billion bill. The moderate Democrats balked at a funding reduction for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, leaving the House floor in chaos and emotions running high. Ms. Pelosi was left with little choice but to accept the less-restrictive Senate bill, which had passed on a lopsided bipartisan vote this week and would do far less to rein in President Trump’s immigration crackdown. A last-minute revolt by centrist lawmakers ensured the demise of Ms. Pelosi’s efforts to toughen the conditions in the Senate’s $4.6 billion bill. The moderate Democrats had begun to worry about the possibility of leaving Washington on Friday for a weeklong July 4 recess without having cleared the humanitarian aid, and some were balking at a funding reduction for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That left the House floor in chaos, with emotions running high.
“We already have our compromise,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said on the Senate floor, calling his chamber’s bill “the only game in town.” Ms. Pelosi was left with little choice but to accept the less restrictive Senate bill, which had passed on a lopsided bipartisan vote this week and would do far less to rein in Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown.
“It’s time to quit playing games,” he added. “Time to make law.” “We already have our compromise,” Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, said on the Senate floor, calling his chamber’s bill “the only game in town.”
Liberal Democrats were left infuriated. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, called the decision “an abdication of power we should refuse to accept. They will keep hurting kids if we do.” Ms. Pelosi resisted bowing to the Senate until the end, maneuvering for days among the competing factions in her ranks to try to find a set of restrictions to rein in Mr. Trump’s immigration crackdown that would satisfy progressives without alienating moderates and lawmakers from Republican-leaning districts.
“No one should be advocating for the Republican proposal in the Senate if you’re in the House, especially given we had a strong vote from our caucus,” said Representative Mark Pocan, Democrat of Wisconsin and a co-chairman of the Progressive Caucus. “I just would hate to try to explain that back home.” The final vote badly divided the party, including at its highest levels. The leaders themselves split, with Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader; Representative James E. Clyburn, the whip; and Cheri Bustos, the campaign chief, all supporting the bill. Much of the younger, second tier of leaders — including Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the caucus chairman; Representative Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, the assistant speaker; and Representative Katherine M. Clark of Massachusetts, the caucus vice chairwoman — voted “no.”
He later singled out the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of 23 Democrats and 23 Republicans, on Twitter for their push to consider the Senate bill, asking “since when did the Problem Solvers Caucus become the Child Abuse Caucus?” The Congressional Hispanic Caucus issued a blistering statement calling the measure “a betrayal of our American values.”
Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, said, “We are really, truly creating a whole generation of children that won’t forget what we did.” “This bill — opposed by the Hispanic caucus and nearly 100 Democratic members of the House — will not stop the Trump administration’s chaos and cruelty,” the statement said. “What happened today is unacceptable, and we will not forget this betrayal.”
But the House Democrats’ left flank was defeated by the party’s moderates. Opposition from the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and several lawmakers from Republican-leaning districts had forced House Democrats to delay a vote to bring up their measure in an embarrassing display of disarray. Moderate Democrats had threatened to vote against the rule for debate on the modified bill, a show of disloyalty to the leadership that is almost unheard-of under Ms. Pelosi. Liberal Democrats were left fuming. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called the decision “an abdication of power we should refuse to accept.” The Trump administration, she said, “will keep hurting kids if we do.”
“They are melting down, in disarray, and it’s the easiest thing in the world to do,” crowed Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican. “There’s a bipartisan bill to solve a crisis. Everybody in this town knows the Senate bill is going to pass. Everybody knows how it’s going to end.” Representative Mark Pocan, Democrat of Wisconsin and a chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, scathingly singled out the Problem Solvers Caucus, a group of 23 moderate Democrats and 23 Republicans who lobbied lawmakers to accept the Senate measure, asking on Twitter, “Since when did the Problem Solvers Caucus become the Child Abuse Caucus?”
Moderate Democrats privately told House Democratic leaders that they were wary of supporting a bill that provided less money for ICE that could later be used against them in their re-election campaigns to portray them as weak on immigration enforcement, according to two lawmakers and several aides familiar with the discussions who described them on condition of anonymity. The moderates were livid about the comment, which Representative Max Rose, Democrat of New York, said, “Just speaks to why everyone hates this place.”
The squabbling grew intense on the House floor on Thursday afternoon, as a scrum of the moderate members huddled in tense discussion about how to proceed. At least one, Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, grew visibly emotional and at one point stormed out red-faced, barking at a reporter who attempted to interview her: “I do not want to talk!” Liberal lawmakers were left with a bitter taste, lamenting that a small group of colleagues in their own party had been able to force the majority of Democrats to swallow an outcome they did not want.
The legislation has posed a tricky political test for Ms. Pelosi, whose caucus has been deeply divided by it. Liberals, including some Hispanic lawmakers, balked at the bill early in the week because they feared it would only enable Mr. Trump’s harsh immigration tactics by funding the very agencies that have carried them out. They threatened to withhold their votes, insisting on adding new restrictions and stiffer standards for facilities that house for migrant children, as well as more conditions on how the funding would be spent. In the end, almost every Democrat supported the resulting House bill. “There’s a level of resentment,” said Representative Raúl Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona. “We have to assess how we go forward. This is not a death fight between us, but it is certainly something that I think us progressives cannot take for granted.”
But on Thursday, another proposed change, an $81 million cut for ICE, sparked a brush fire on the right of the caucus. The divisions came to a head when members of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition and several lawmakers from Republican-leaning districts forced House Democrats to delay a vote to bring up a new version of the measure, which combined the Senate bill with restrictions and rules previously passed by the House. Moderate Democrats had threatened to block that bill by voting against the rule that sets the debate procedures, a show of disloyalty to the leadership that is almost unheard-of under Ms. Pelosi. She was forced to cancel the procedural vote rather than see it defeated.
Representative Raul Ruiz of California, a medical doctor who trained in refugee assistance at Harvard and crafted the humanitarian standards supported by many Democrats, said that merely increasing funding for medical care, shelter and other needs would not be enough when a Justice Department lawyer argued in court that Customs and Border Protection may not be required to provide soap and toothbrushes for children in custody. “They are melting down, in disarray,” crowed Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican.
House Democrats also harshly criticized Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, for joining with Republicans to support an aid package they said contained inadequate limitations on the Trump administration, arguing that his position had undercut their negotiating leverage.
“I blame Senate Democrats first and foremost for putting us in this position,” said Representative Pramila Jayapal, Democrat of Washington and a chairwoman of the progressive caucus.
Asked how such a collapse could be avoided in the future, Ms. Jayapal said, “I am looking for a new pharmaceutical drug that builds spines.”
But ultimately, divisions in the House, not differences with the Senate, forced Ms. Pelosi’s hand. Moderate Democrats privately told House Democratic leaders that they were wary of supporting a bill that provided less money for ICE that could later be used against them in their re-election campaigns to portray them as weak on immigration enforcement, according to two lawmakers and several aides familiar with the discussions who described them on the condition of anonymity.
The squabbling grew intense on the House floor on Thursday afternoon, as a scrum of the moderate members huddled in tense discussion about how to proceed. At least one, Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia, grew visibly emotional and at one point stormed out red-faced, barking at a reporter who tried to interview her: “I do not want to talk!”
The legislation posed a tricky political test for Ms. Pelosi. Liberals, including some Hispanic lawmakers, balked at the bill early in the week because they feared it would only enable Mr. Trump’s harsh immigration tactics by funding the very agencies that have carried them out. They threatened to withhold their votes, insisting on adding new restrictions and stiffer standards for facilities that house for migrant children, as well as more conditions on how the funding would be spent. In the end, almost every Democrat supported the resulting House bill.
But on Thursday, another proposed change, an $81 million cut for ICE, prompted a brush fire on the right of the caucus.
Representative Raul Ruiz of California, a medical doctor who trained in refugee assistance at Harvard and drafted the humanitarian standards supported by many Democrats, said that merely increasing funding for medical care, shelter and other needs would not be enough when a Justice Department lawyer argued in court that Customs and Border Protection may not be required to provide soap and toothbrushes for children in custody.
“This bill will fund a dysfunctional system,” he said. “There are no standards that will force them to comply and be accountable to a basic level of humanitarian treatment and humanitarian needs.”“This bill will fund a dysfunctional system,” he said. “There are no standards that will force them to comply and be accountable to a basic level of humanitarian treatment and humanitarian needs.”
While the bill would significantly increase the funds available to shelter migrants, he said, “It doesn’t say that an individual should have at least a two-meter-square space; it doesn’t say that temperatures should be kept in a humane range; it doesn’t say that lights and noise should be off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. so we can respect the sleep of the families which is necessary for health.” Dr. Ruiz said. While the bill would significantly increase the funds available to shelter migrants, he said, “It doesn’t say that an individual should have at least a two-meter-square space; it doesn’t say that temperatures should be kept in a humane range; it doesn’t say that lights and noise should be off between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. so we can respect the sleep of the families which is necessary for health.”
Tragic images of the migrant crisis and details of the horrid conditions migrant families and their children face in overcrowded, squalid detention centers and facilities have intensified the urgency to pass any legislation, but it also hardened some of the Democrats’ resolve to fight for tougher oversight in the bill.Tragic images of the migrant crisis and details of the horrid conditions migrant families and their children face in overcrowded, squalid detention centers and facilities have intensified the urgency to pass any legislation, but it also hardened some of the Democrats’ resolve to fight for tougher oversight in the bill.
“It’s difficult to see how anyone would object to some protections that would enhance protection of children and transparency,” said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Rules Committee. “It’s difficult to see how anyone would object to some protections that would enhance protection of children and transparency,” Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts said.
But Republicans argued that the overwhelming bipartisan vote on the Senate bill — and the blunt rejection of the House’s initial legislation — showed that the core bill should be allowed to move forward without changes.But Republicans argued that the overwhelming bipartisan vote on the Senate bill — and the blunt rejection of the House’s initial legislation — showed that the core bill should be allowed to move forward without changes.
“You’re going down a path that doesn’t ensure a presidential signature,” warned Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee. “Frankly, I have some concerns that even the Senate version meets the definition of what the president will sign.”“You’re going down a path that doesn’t ensure a presidential signature,” warned Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the House Rules Committee. “Frankly, I have some concerns that even the Senate version meets the definition of what the president will sign.”
“Why the majority would push for provisions that failed in the Senate is beyond my understanding,” Mr. Cole added. The now-jettisoned House changes, released early Thursday, included language ensuring the release of unaccompanied migrant children from temporary facilities after three months and allowing for lawmaker visits to facilities without notice.
The now-jettisoned House changes, released well after midnight on Thursday, included language ensuring the release of unaccompanied migrant children from temporary facilities after three months and allowing for lawmaker visits to facilities without notice. It would have toughened health and safety standards for detention centers and other facilities, provided money for a pilot processing program in conjunction with nonprofits and reduced some funding for ICE and other agencies. Customs and Border Protection would have had 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.
It would have toughened health and safety standards for detention centers and other facilities, provided money for a pilot processing program in conjunction with nonprofits and reduced some funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies. Customs and Border Protection would have had 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.