Dems Agree To Support This Portion Of WH’s Emergency Funds Request For Border

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (L) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) lead a rally and news conference ahead of a House vote on health care and prescription drug legi... WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (L) and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) lead a rally and news conference ahead of a House vote on health care and prescription drug legislation in the Rayburn Room at the U.S. Capitol May 15, 2019 in Washington, DC. The bicameral group of Democrats urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to bring the Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act up for a vote in the Senate. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Democratic leadership will reportedly agree to fund a portion of the White House’s request for emergency funding at the U.S.-Mexico border, Politico reported.

Democrats said they’d approve aid strictly to address humanitarian issues at the border in their disaster relief package, just a portion of the $4.5 billion request from the White House.

Democratic leaders were careful to communicate that the aid would need to be “tightly limited” to humanitarian funds for the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Democrats also rejected White House asks for funds for more beds for its detention centers and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

It was unclear how much money Democrats would be willing to include in the disaster bill, designed to provide relief for those impacted by the hurricanes, flooding and wildfires in the U.S. in the last year and a half.

Latest News
21
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for noonm noonm says:

    Making mistakes in real time. Trump will just misappropriate the funds for his wall so there is little point in using specific language. Instead, declare no funds for Trump until he complies with all oversight requests/subpeonas.

  2. No, there is. It’s illegal for the agencies to use funds for purposes other than those that Congress appropriated them for. And the people that do the budgets and move money like to stay out of prison.

    This actually enhances the case going forward against his misappropriation of funds, as it addresses the one part that might actually get legitimately labelled an emergency, and separates it from his precious Wall.

  3. I’m usually not happy about headlines that mislead on the actual content of the article, but this one made me laugh because I can just imagine the purists going red-faced nuts over the headline before reading the article. This “agreement” is, in fact, just a middle-finger in Trump’s face.

  4. Nah. That’s insanely hard to do and potentially criminal. Even he and Miller and the rest of the Corruption Cabal recognized that to play around with funding he’s not supposed to have, they had to invoke procedures for getting at it, i.e., declaring a nat’l emergency.

  5. Avatar for outis outis says:

    Not until we can actually stop the action and impose some punishment for doing so. (This, of course, is why they are so eager to stack the courts with reliable stooges.) Since the plan seems to be to allow this in the budget, I suppose we will actually get to see what prediction comes to be.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

15 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for valgalky23 Avatar for mondfledermaus Avatar for sniffit Avatar for dangoodbar Avatar for noonm Avatar for castor_troy Avatar for outis Avatar for haddockbranzini

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: