House and Senate Agree to ONE WEEK funding of Homeland Security Dept…

One WEEK!

This is a disgrace…..

The Democrats again bail Boehner out with his party….

Republicans vowing to govern effectively as a congressional majority failed a fundamental test Friday, when House leaders managed to narrowly pass only a seven-day funding extension to avert a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security just hours before money was to run out.

The agreement was reached after a stunning and humiliating setback for Speaker John A. Boehner and his leadership team earlier Friday, when the House voted 224 to 203 against their original plan to extend funding for the department for three weeks — a position that Mr. Boehner had considered a fail-safe. More than 50 House Republicans defected, voting against the bill.

The House’s defeat of a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security exposed crippling internal divisions.

The speaker was rescued by Democrats, who supported his offer of a week-long extension because they believed it would lead to a vote next week on full funding for the department through the fiscal year, without the provisions of an original House bill that would have gutted President Obama’s executive action on immigration. Michael Steel, a spokesman for Mr. Boehner, said the speaker had made no promises or deals with House Democrats to guarantee such a vote…..

More…..

Share on Facebook

28 thoughts on “House and Senate Agree to ONE WEEK funding of Homeland Security Dept…”

  1. Roll call on one-week extension (which would have failed just like the 3-week extension, without Democratic votes):

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll106.xml

    FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 106

    H R 33 2/3 RECORDED VOTE 27-Feb-2015 9:59 PM
    QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Concur in the Senate Amendment
    BILL TITLE: Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act

    Ayes Noes N/V
    183 55 _6 – Republican
    174 _5 _9 – Democratic

    357 60 15 – TOTALS

    Republicans not voting for the extension [55 no; 6 not voting] (grouped by state):

    Brooks (AL) R AL No
    Palmer R AL No
    Franks (AZ) R AZ No
    Gosar R AZ No
    Salmon R AZ No
    Lamborn R CO No
    Clawson (FL) R FL No
    DeSantis R FL No
    Nugent R FL No
    Posey R FL No
    Hice, Jody B. R GA No
    King (IA) R IA No
    Labrador R ID No
    Hultgren R IL No
    Huelskamp R KS No
    Yoder R KS No
    Massie R KY No
    Fleming R LA No
    Amash R MI No
    Hudson R NC No
    Jones R NC No
    Meadows R NC No
    Walker R NC No
    Pearce R NM No
    Amodei R NV No
    Jordan R OH No
    Wenstrup R OH No
    Bridenstine R OK No
    Barletta R PA No
    Perry R PA No
    Gowdy R SC No
    Mulvaney R SC No
    Rice (SC) R SC No
    DesJarlais R TN No
    Duncan (TN) R TN No
    Fincher R TN No
    Babin R TX No
    Barton R TX No
    Burgess R TX No
    Farenthold R TX No
    Flores R TX No
    Gohmert R TX No
    Johnson, Sam R TX No
    Neugebauer R TX No
    Olson R TX No
    Poe (TX) R TX No
    Ratcliffe R TX No
    Smith (TX) R TX No
    Brat R VA No
    Forbes R VA No
    Griffith R VA No
    Hurt (VA) R VA No
    Wittman R VA No
    Duffy R WI No
    Sensenbrenner R WI No

    Aderholt R AL Not Voting
    Coffman R CO Not Voting
    Hartzler R MO Not Voting
    Long R MO Not Voting
    Fortenberry R NE Not Voting
    Roe (TN) R TN Not Voting

    Democrats not voting for the extension [5 no; 9 not voting]:

    Grijalva D AZ No
    Napolitano D CA No
    Visclosky D IN No
    Pascrell D NJ No
    Smith (WA) D WA No

    Bass D CA Not Voting
    Lee D CA Not Voting
    Speier D CA Not Voting
    Vargas D CA Not Voting
    Jeffries D NY Not Voting
    Schrader D OR Not Voting
    Green, Gene D TX Not Voting
    Hinojosa D TX Not Voting
    McDermott D WA Not Voting

  2. Boehner is the weakest Speaker in modern memory.

    I can see real questions being asked as to whether he should step down.

    He doesn’t seem to have ANY control of his troops.

  3. Nor would anyone else I suspect…..

    SOOOOO

    Even with their wins 4 months ago ?
    Things haven’t changed ONE BIT for the GOPer’s
    In fact in the Senate its worst….
    They have a majority that SEEMS to be STILL at the mercy of WHO?
    HARRY REID!

    I told you people…
    Losing wasn’t so bad for Democrats…
    They lost the rudder…
    But they STILL got the influence on the paddles
    And the who 2014 Midterm loss has made them focus like they NEVER HAD TO!
    At least in Congress
    I see this a net GAIN for Dem’s…
    Hopefully a Hillary Win will get them back the Senate…
    It would be a miracle to get back the House…
    But Alas?
    Boehner can’t do much of ANYTHING on critical stuff without WHO?
    Yup!
    THE DEMOCRATS!

    The guys who put this countries government together where pretty damn smart….
    They knew their shit….

  4. Being in control has NOT really got the Democrats to row together just like it’s a problem for Republicans…
    But NOT being in control HAS….
    Even in the Senate?
    Manchin has gone along with his party, eh?
    It’s backwards…
    But it’s a fact it seems….

  5. Your whole argument is built on a fallacy.

    The purpose of being elected to office is to govern.

    Apparently,in your view, the purpose is to simply oppose the other party.

    Just another of your well known WEIRD outlooks on things.

  6. The GOP is dead set AGAINST Governing…..

    Yesterdays action just confirms this….

    That Harry Reid and the Dem’s in the House got the GOPer’s to actually fund the DHS for a week…..CLEANLY shows that dispite them LOSING a few months ago?
    THEY…
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOVERNING….
    YOU confuse winning with GOVERNING my friend….
    NOW the Democrats ARE leading MORE from thr Rear…TOGETHER and United….
    Something THEY have NOT done since Obama got in office….
    RESULTS count Jack…
    NOT perceptions….
    President Obama NOW IS fighting since his poarty left him at the altar a few months ago…
    He need NOT worry about his party…
    And they HAVE rallied to HIS support….
    LOSING AGAIN….
    HAS become winning for Democrats in the Congress….

    I have found sunshine where others have found rain Jack….

  7. No you are simply trying to make an irrational point.

    Political parties exist for the purpose of winning elections.

    What you are mistaking is strategy for governing.

    It should inform you that no one else here has agreed with this weird proposition that losing is a good thing.

    Indeed, Except for you ,I’ve heard no one else make such an argument.

    Of course you can persist in such,however , your continuing effort to convince others here that you are “right” is likely a exercise in futility.

  8. It’s true that there are a few very rare instances (e.g. when whoever wins might face and take the blame for some gigantic but unavoidable catastrophe) when it might not be so good to win an election.

    But that’s hardly true of 2010 or 2014.

    The opposition, if it chooses, can be more philosophical than pragmatic and develop some alternate “strategy for governing”, like many small ideological parties that don’t foresee immediately joining the government (e.g. the Greens, the Libertarians, socialist and communist parties).

    But the Democratic and Republican parties are built for governing as well as planning. And you can’t do that without power. (The antebellum Republican Party, as Eric Foner’s “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men” shows, was an attempt to unite abolitionists from the older antislavery parties with other free-soil advocates, many of them racist, xenophobic and anti-Catholic, in a reach for real political power.)

  9. I agree with your points.

    Certainly the Republicans ,in retrospect, probably wished they had lost the presidential election of 1928.

    Blamed for the Great Depression, the formerly Majority party in the country was out of Congressional power for fourteen years and wouldn’t win another presidential election for twenty four years.

  10. The Conservatives certainly paid a price in 1945 for winning the British General Election of 1935 as the National Government and then failing to avoid war or end the Slump. (There would have been a 1940 election, had not Something Happened.)

    What may seem surprising is how quickly the Tories came back in 1951, but even in the jubilant days of July and August 1945, soberer heads in all parties realized what a huge task that a poorer Britain (with a smaller Empire) would face in economic reconstruction and maintaining her position between a paranoid Stalinist U.S.S.R. and an aggrandizing, triumphalist U.S.A.

    As it turned out, while Labour achieved many great things (many of which Margaret Thatcher tried to undo in 1979-91), Attlee’s government took blame from the voters for continuing Austerity including rationing and a hot war (Korea) with the Communist Bloc. Churchill, like Ike, seemed a reassuring wartime victor to many voters.

    [In 1951, the Tories actually won slightly fewer votes, but more seats Parliament, than Labour.]

  11. I shall persist
    Because I believe I’ve made a valid point
    As you would point out?
    I’m not looking for a vote on my point here

  12. The GOPer can set the agenda
    But they MUST bargin for Dem old
    The lose’s have strengthened the dem’ actually

  13. Your intransigence has now become obsessive silliness.

    Ask Harry Reid if he prefers being Minority Leader to Majority Leader ? Or any of the Democrats who chaired committees if they are “glad” to have had to give up their chairmanships?

    Any person ,with the LEAST understanding of American government ,would understand that the essence of governing is setting the agenda,bringing up legislation and implementing policy.

    The Minority can manuever within the rules to thwart the Majority for sure,but no one is “glad” to be in that position .It is the only strategic weapon at their disposal.The Democrats are merely doing what the Republicans did when they were in the same position.

    Republicans ,as a majority ,can thwart any presidential appointments.You REALLY believe Democrats are “glad” about that?You think the President is happy about that?

    If so ,your obsessive misunderstanding of “strategy” for “governing” is certainly beyond the ability of anyone here to explain.

    In sum,you have no “point” really ,just a continuing flight from reality.Continue on ,but please don’t fool yourself that anyone here takes this for anything other than the intransigent silliness that I mentioned above.

    Have fun in this latest corner of JamesWorld.

  14. Now, if Obama were really far more conservative than his party’s caucus in Congress (cf., e.g., Andrew Cuomo vis-à-vis the N.Y. State Legislature, Gray Davis vs the California Legislature, or Ed Koch vs the N.Y. City Council) and if that caucus were baiting him heavily from what in America is considered the Far Left (demanding things like, just for purposes of illustration, Single-Payer Health Insurance, unrestricted free immigration, unrestricted free abortion on demand, repeal of the 2nd Amendment, LGBTQ quotas, card-check unionization, forbidding states from imposing right-to-work [under Taft-Hartley’s section 14(b)], abolishing the NSA & DHS, restoring a 91% marginal income-tax rate, dissolving the big banks, unilateral nuclear disarmament and immediate withdrawal from all Asia), then he might want that caucus to be in a minority so that he could bargain with an opposition caucus controlling at least one chamber of Congress.

    But, despite what disappointed Code Pink and MoveOn activists might think, there’s just not that great a difference between Barack Obama and any part of the Democratic caucuses in Congress. There’s a far greater distance between the President’s policies and even the liberal part of the GOP caucuses.

  15. Jack
    You are presenting things I have NOT SAID
    At no time did i protest the Democrats as happy in their beat down by the Republican’s
    Would I have rather the Dem’s win ?
    Sure
    But I mearly point out that WITH their loss the Democrats DO HAVE power , as you put it…
    Boehner and McConnell STILL have to get ok’d by Pelosi and Reid
    I also AM Happy (for the 100th time) that the lost has given Dem’s clarity in what they have to do to regain the majority
    And for the time being they ARE rowing together some they failed to do often in the majority…

  16. Ok?
    Let’s look at appointments, ok?
    The GOP’s are running the show as of now?
    Hummmmm?
    The TWO BIGGEST confirmations are Def sec
    And AG?
    Well BOTH are gonna get oked
    As a matter of fact everybody’s favorite Senator Warren just shitcanned obama’s choice for treasury
    Appointments?
    While Reid was the majority guy?
    The GOPer’s held up judges
    LOTS OF THEM
    But
    Because the Dem’s WHERE LOSING THEIR MAJORITY?
    They finally pressed for a batch to get confirmed
    I could go on…
    The fact is the Dem’s got lazy as the majority
    They now are energized
    It sounds crazy
    But it is TRUE…..
    Sometimes
    Losing makes Ya see things

  17. Well, after all this WASTE of time you conclude with

    “Would I have rather the Dems win?SURE.”

    Accordingly why would one wanting something to happen,be “happy”(your word) that the event didn’t occur?

    And so we conclude this chapter of the “Logic of James.”

    Join us for our next episode!

  18. These generalizations are so hard to confirm as to be of little use.

    Sometimes opposition will unite a party in hopes of regaining power (e.g. the Democrats after 2004 or the GOP after 1992), and sometimes it will allow existing fractures to grow wider (e.g. Tea Party vs Main Street GOP, Bryanite Democrats vs Tammany Hall vs Wall Street Gold Bugs).

    Sometimes a majority will unite a party that now has to propose a specific budget and plan of government (e.g. FDR 1932, Reagan 1980), and sometimes it will divide it deeply between an Administration wing and a reform or insurgent wing (e.g. Progressive Republicans vs Mark Hanna, the anti-War Democrats vs LBJ vs the Dixiecrats).

    If all that James is saying is that being in a minority may sometimes carry some benefits to counteract the markedly-greater losses, I don’t think very many here would disagree.

    But 2015 (or 2011 or 2001) is certainly not one of those very rare instances when it’s better to have lost than to have won.

  19. Very good DSD…..
    I Like how you did that….
    It’s ok
    But
    I’m sticking to my story for right now
    We’ll see how long the GOPer’s HAVE to make deals with the Dem’s
    BTW?
    I’m surprised no one reminded me about how I was wrong about
    Indie senators jumping ship…..

Comments are closed.