DEMS RALLY OPPOSITION: Congressional Democrats are signaling they're planning to put up a fight over the funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protest the Trump administration's immigration enforcement.
The House has already passed eight of the necessary 12 appropriations bills needed to avoid another government shutdown on Jan. 30, and Republicans released the text of the four remaining bills, including one for DHS, on Tuesday. The chances of avoiding a shutdown for the most part seem decent as lawmakers have supported the funding bills by large bipartisan majorities.
But DHS is the one sticking point.
The Hill's Mike Lillis reports House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) announced during a caucus meeting Wednesday that they will vote against the DHS bill when it reaches the floor today.
Their opposition comes as Democrats are increasingly feeling the need to respond to what they feel is an abuse of power from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after the killing of a woman in Minnesota by an officer this month.
Liberals have demanded that reforms to rein in ICE be included in the DHS bill, which as currently written would allow tens of billions of dollars to flow to the department while maintaining ICE's $10 billion budget. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) told Lillis the Democratic mood on the current bill is "Hell no."
But the mounting Democratic opposition isn't expected to be enough to block the bill as the party is in the minority, and some Democrats have said they'll support it. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said Democrats didn't get all they wanted, but they were able to gain some additional oversight over DHS.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, didn't say how she would vote on the bill but argued a partial shutdown or short-term funding bill would be worse.
Presuming the bill passes the House, the question will be if it can gain enough support in the Senate next week to get to the president's desk.
▪ The Hill: House votes to repeal Minnesota wilderness protections.
▪ The Hill: Dems introduce stock trading ban discharge petition.
SCOTUS'S FED CONCERNS: Justices on both ideological ends of the Supreme Court expressed concern Wednesday that allowing Trump to fire Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook would gut the agency's independence.
The highly anticipated case concerns whether Trump can remove Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud against her, which she denies. The justices are responsible for determining the limitations around the president being allowed to fire a Fed governor "for cause," as laid out in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is taking a broad view of the definition, but justices expressed concerns about what that would mean for the Fed's ability to perform its duties without interference from the White House.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, said the DOJ's position could subject the Fed to considerable political influence, from which it has historically been separated.
"Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for cause that the president alone determines … That would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve that we just discussed," he said.
But some justices also cast doubt on some of Cook's arguments, potentially meaning the court may pursue a narrow ruling to avoid setting major precedent.
Read five takeaways from the case from The Hill's Zach Schonfeld and Sylvan Lane here.
▪ The Hill: California GOP asks court to block new House map.
CLINTONS CONTEMPT VOTE: The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to hold former President Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt for refusing subpoenas to testify in the committee's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.
The resolutions passed the committee comfortably Wednesday, with a 34-8 vote for the former president and a 28-15 vote for the former first lady. All Republicans voted for both resolutions, while nine Democrats voted for the former and three Democrats voted for the latter.
Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) praised the bipartisan votes and said he expects the resolutions to pass the full House, which can take them up as soon as the first week of February.
The vote came after the Clintons refused to sit for depositions on Epstein, rejecting the subpoenas as "invalid and legally unenforceable." They argued Republicans are being selective in targeting them for having said they don't have any additional information to provide to the committee, noting that others who were subpoenaed were allowed to avoid testifying through the same response.
Democrats on the committee also tried to shift the attention back to the congressionally mandated deadline that passed more than a month ago for the DOJ to release the Epstein files, many of which remain private.
"When we talk about complying with the law, you have to talk about complying with the very subpoena that this committee actually passed in a bipartisan way," said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the panel's ranking member.
Meanwhile, Comer announced Wednesday that the committee will hold a deposition with longtime Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell on Feb. 9.
▪ The Hill: Judge denies bid for independent Epstein files monitor.
▪ The Hill: Epstein survivor asks judge to enforce files' release.
GORE PROTESTS: Former Vice President Al Gore drew attention for protesting the Trump administration while in Davos.
Gore reportedly booed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick during remarks the Cabinet member was giving at the conference. Lutnick's remarks were viewed by some in attendance as combative and "dismissive" about Europe, causing some, including European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, to leave mid-way through, The Financial Times reported.
A Commerce Department spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that "during Secretary Lutnick's three-minute speech, no one left hastily. Only one person booed, and it was Al Gore."
Gore told multiple outlets that he didn't interrupt Lutnick while he was speaking but spoke up after he finished.
"It's no secret that I think this administration's energy policy is insane," Gore said. "And at the end of his speech I reacted with how I felt, and so did several others."
Lutnick brushed off the incident, writing on X, "Thankfully, we didn't come to Davos for Al Gore's praise."
No comments:
Post a Comment