| TICK TOCK: The government will shut down in 15 days if Congress can’t pass a funding patch. TRYING TO MAKE SOME SENSE OF IT ALL House Speaker Mike Johnson said he plans to intertwine financial support for Ukraine with legislation that would toughen policies on the southern border. That is already getting very complicated, and very quickly. Critics to the right of him: We already know that the conservative hard-liners in the House Freedom Caucus are deeply skeptical of more Ukraine aid. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) explicitly told Johnson during a meeting with the ultra-conservative group that he wanted a list of ways the new speaker would “handcuff” the administration on additional money. Several members of the group, including Chairman Scott Perry (R-Pa.), told us Thursday that they don’t like linking Ukraine funding and border provisions, either. In their view, the Biden administration can’t be trusted to spend additional border dollars or properly implement any new immigration laws. “I’m not a fan of that,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), who added that while his constituents want to secure the border, “this administration is not enforcing the law, so passing an additional policy or law that doesn’t ensure enforcement is almost a moot point.” Perry echoed that criticism while acknowledging he also has “issues with Ukraine funding in general.” Detractors to the left: Many Democrats we spoke to Thursday said they want to see exactly what a border package looks like before giving their opinion, but most of them slammed the idea of linking it with foreign aid. “I don’t know what I’ll end up doing until I see it, but I wish they wouldn’t do that,” Rep. Susan Wild (D-Pa.) told reporters. “I think that it’s really reckless when you talk about foreign aid to either Israel or Ukraine in the midst of wars.” Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) swatted aside a question about a possible linkage, dismissing it as “talking points that aren’t legislation.” Again, as we wrote Tuesday, the Democratic divide on border issues runs deep. Some members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for instance, are up in arms about a bipartisan border package that has drawn support in the CHC ranks. Anything traded for Ukraine funding is likely to be only more objectionable. Stuck in the middle with a deal? But there are signs that the more pragmatic wings of both parties could come together and strike a deal that could squeeze through both chambers. Count House Foreign Affairs Chair Michael McCaul (R-Texas), who favors Ukraine funding, among that group. “The Democrats really want Ukraine,” he said. “You have a good faction in my conference that want Ukraine, but that's our leverage to get border or otherwise we don't have any leverage at all. And to my conference, that’s the most important issue right now.” As we reported in Tuesday’s Huddle, Senate Republicans are crafting a package of potential border policy changes, which could include reviving the controversial “remain in Mexico” policy for asylum seekers. Two moderate Senate Democrats, Sens. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), both said Thursday they are open to looking at what Republicans put on offer. “I think what works really well is if we get Israel and Ukraine funding going,” Tester said. “If there's border [funding] in it, we'll take a look at that. If there's disaster [funding] in it, we’ll look at that.” — Daniella Diaz and Jordain Carney, with assist from Nicholas Wu
|
Comments
Post a Comment