Another bipartisan effort to pass Ukraine and Israel aid is underway in the House. This one has a border security element, including the resurrection of the "Remain in Mexico" policy that many on the right were calling for.
But realistically, the bill is going nowhere. Democrats don't want it because it doesn't contain any humanitarian aid for Gaza. Republicans don't want it because, well, take your pick: it helps Biden, it doesn't have more than a quarter of what's in the House-passed HR 2 legislation, and did I mention it helps Biden?
It should be clear to the few moderates left in the House that either party doesn't want their input. Just vote how the leaders want you to and sit down and shut up.
“The Speaker’s got to manage the conference. He’s doing the best he can to do,” centrist Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) said.
“But I also think it’s incumbent upon members that, if there’s not successful progress on time-sensitive existential matters, that we do what we have to do to protect our country,” he told reporters Thursday at the Capitol. “That’s why we’re dropping this bill. It’s the only bipartisan bill on the border and Ukraine in the House.”
Democrats don't want Ukraine/border funding 2.0. They want the original bill the Senate passed that funded Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, border security, and humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
“This is clear. Mike Johnson simply needs to put the bipartisan national security bill on the House floor for an up-or-down vote, and it will pass,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. “That’s it.”
Jeffries is right. The Senate bill would pass with plenty of GOP support — probably with as much as 50-60 GOP votes.
The new Ukraine/Border bill doesn't have a chance. But it will put additional pressure on Speaker Johnson.
The legislation — dubbed the Defending Borders, Defending Democracies Act — would allocate $66.32 billion to the Defense Department to support embattled nations, including roughly $47 billion for Ukraine, $10 billion for Israel, $5 billion for the Indo-Pacific and $2 billion to support operations in the U.S. Central Command.
The border portion of the bill would resurrect the “Remain in Mexico” policy for one year, which requires that migrants looking to enter the U.S., including through asylum, are required to return to the country they left as proceedings are underway in the U.S.
The 2.0 bill wouldn't have any of the mandatory border shutdown provisions found in the Senate bill. But it has its own triggers for keeping most migrants out of the U.S.
Fitzpatrick tried to tie the border security measures in the bill to Ukraine funding.
“Securing one’s borders is necessary to preserving one’s democracy and, therefore, necessary to maintaining world order and world peace,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement. “As the world’s oldest and strongest democracy, the United States’ primary responsibility must be to secure its own borders. But we also have an obligation to assist our allies in securing their borders, especially when they come under assault by dictators, terrorists, and totalitarians.”
“Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan are all freedom-loving democracies, they are our allies, and we must assist them in protecting their borders just as we must protect our own,” he continued. “We can, and must, achieve all of the above.”
I never found the "secure our border first" argument very compelling. What? Congress can't chew gum and walk at the same time? The opportunity was there to make a huge dent in migrant entries and supply Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan with enough aid to hold off the terrorists and totalitarians.
It's now lost. What happens in Ukraine over the next few months without that $61 billion in aid?
Nothing good, I am sure.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member