Mediaboss Marketing

Border wall skeptics like Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a moderate Republican from a majority-Hispanic district in Floridas Miami-Dade County, are well aware that they're being bypassed. | Joe Raedle/Getty Images

House Republicans are poised to fund $1.6 billion for President Donald Trump's border wall through a procedural maneuver designed to avoid a floor vote that might fail.

The House Rules Committee is expected to attach funding for the wall that Trump has proposed building along the Mexican border to the so-called minibus, a downsized spending package for the Pentagon, the Energy Department, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the legislative branch but not DHS, the Cabinet agency responsible for the wall.

Story Continued Below

If an amendment to fund the wall is adopted by the Rules Committee, this line item can circumvent a floor vote, sparing GOP immigration moderates and fiscal hawks from being pressed to approve a project that their constituents might view as xenophobic, misguided and wasteful and sparing GOP leaders possible defeat.

Border wall skeptics like Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a moderate Republican from a majority-Hispanic district in Floridas Miami-Dade County, are well aware that they're being bypassed. Im not OK [with it], but it is what it is, Ros-Lehtinen told POLITICO in an interview. We hope that it will be dealt with later on, but it looks like its going to be included in the package. Perhaps, she said, it will set the table for a broader deal on immigration reform.

The amendment under consideration by the Rules Committee was drafted by Rep. John Carter, a Texas Republican and chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security Subcommittee. The measure would fund 60 miles of new fence and levee wall in south Texas and 14 miles of secondary fence in the San Diego area, and would earmark roughly $40 million toward planning for additional border wall construction.

At a committee hearing Monday, Carter called the funding "necessary to gain operational control of the border a view that is not shared by most House members, including Republicans, who represent districts near the border.

Your guide to the permanent campaign weekday mornings, in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The anticipated Rules Committee maneuver leaves House Democrats a difficult choice: Approve money for Trumps trademark project, or vote against military funding.

The spending bill that the House passed in May contained $341 million for replacement fencing, as well as additional funding for immigration enforcement. Only 15 Democrats opposed that measure, but the tally will be different this time around, said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer.

Although the inclusion of defense spending will make it a tough bill to vote against, Hoyer told reporters during a Tuesday morning briefing, he's nonetheless urging congressional Democrats to vote "no." "I think, overwhelmingly, Democrats are gonna not be for this bill," he said.

Rep. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat who served in the Marine Corps before he entered politics, has also been pushing his colleagues to vote against the spending measure.

I dont think they should fall for this trick, he said at a press conference Tuesday outside the Capitol. You can be pro-military and against the wall.

Hoyer joined Gallego at the event, as did Rep. Luis Gutierrez, an Illinois Democrat and prominent immigrant-rights advocate. Gutierrez also urged fellow Democrats to reject the border funding.

All we are saying is that Democrats have to stand, as a principle, with the immigrant community, Gutierrez said. We are tired of being some second-tier agenda in the platform of the Democratic Party.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Read the rest here:
House Republicans seek to dodge border wall vote - Politico

For the most part, Congress abides by an unwritten rule: Don't do something that could set you up for a fight with your own party, especially your own president, unless you absolutely have to.

That's what makes a series of sanctions against Russia that the House passed on Tuesday so remarkable: It sets a Republican Congress directly up against a Republican president. And it's the clearest statement yet that Congress doesn'tbelieve President Trump can or will effectively respond to the threat Russia poses.

This is why this bill exists, is they don't trust the administration to do this right, said Olga Oliker, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The bill, which passed the House by a 419 to 3 vote, imposes newsanctions on officials in Russia, Iran and North Korea. Notably, the legislation will prevent Trump from lifting some of those sanctions on his own, reported The Post's Mike DeBonis and Karoun Demirjian. The Senate could approve the package by the end of the week, and Trump will either be forced to sign it or get in a veto standoff with Congress. Margins like the one in Tuesday's vote show that's a standoff Congress could win.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) said it is "well past time" to respond to threats from Russia, Iran and North Korea and pass bipartisan legislation to increase financial sanctions on July 25. (Reuters)

[House prepares to pass sanctions bill and set up veto dilemma for Trump]

The Russia sanctions are retaliation for Russia's alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election. These will be in addition to sanctions President Barack Obama issued on his way out the door, kicking Russian diplomats out of Washington and seizing Russia-owned compounds in the United States.

If Congress thinks Russia needs more punishment, it's pretty obvious why theyaren't confident Trump will do it.

The White House has said it's not opposed to sanctions, but it's been wishy-washy on what those would be. Also, the White House's official statements don't match with the president's actions. Trump has refused to acknowledge the overwhelming conclusion of U.S. intelligence officials that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered Russia to try to influence the U.S. election to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Trump win. He appears to be considering firing his attorney general after complaining about the Justice Department investigation into Russia's actions and any possible help from the Trump campaign. He'sconsidered giving the diplomatic compounds back to Russia.

Asizable majority of Congress has apolar opposite view on how to handle Russia and decided to take things in its own hands. An initial version of these sanctions passed the Senate 98-2, and this version is expected to pass the House with at least a two-thirds (read: veto-proof) majority.

That's a remarkable demonstration of unity from a Congress that has shown exactly none of it lately. Tying Trump's hands on Russia is one of the only things Congress can agree on right now.

There's a lot of stuff they'd rather be doing, Oliker said, and that they're much better equipped to deal with. But in the face of an administration that seems to be having a very difficult time articulating its foreign policy, members of Congress have felt they have little choice but to take foreign policy into their own hands.

From a diplomatic perspective, it's not ideal for Congress to levy sanctions against foreign governments or officials. Both Congress and the president have the power to do so, but the White House's sanctions power is much more nimble. Trump can institute or lift them with the wave of a pen. It's a flexible carrot-and-stick approachand more in line with thenuanced way diplomacy works, Oliker said.

When Congress issues sanctions, they tend to stay in place for a while. A majority of lawmakers in both chambers to agree to them, then they are signed by the president. The same process has to happen to reverse them.

The last time Congress forced a president to impose sanctions against Russia was in 2012, when a Republican Congress forced President Barack Obama to impose sanctions against Russia with the Magnitsky Act.

The Magnitsky Act was put in place in retaliation for the human rights abuses suffered by Russian lawyer and auditor Sergei Magnitsky, who had uncovered a financial corruption scheme involving theRussian government. It originally blocked18 Russian business executives and government officials from entering the United States and froze assets in U.S. financial institutions. And if it sounds familiar, it's allegedly one of the reasons a Russian lawyer set up a now-infamous meeting with Donald Trump Jr. during the campaign.

Anyway, in 2012, the Obama administration wanted a different set of '70s-era sanctions against Russia repealed. The Congress, then split between a Democratic-majority Senate and Republican-controlled House, basically repealed those and attached the Magnitsky Act. Then too,the message was: We don't trust you to be as tough on Russia as we want you to be.

Congress is saying the same thing to Trumptoday, only with an extra layer of political intrigue. Republicans are in control of Congress, so they decide which bills get a vote in either chamber. Thus they're primarily responsible for sticking it to Trump on Russia.

Republicans in Congress and Trump have mostly agreed on the broad strokes of policy: Repeal Obamacare, crack down on illegal immigration, end federal grants to Planned Parenthood.

But when it comes to getting tough on Russia, even Republicans in Congress don't trust their president.

Original post:
Republicans in Congress really don't trust Trump to get tough on Russia - Washington Post

Republicans in Tennessee effectively blocked Nashville from creating a bus rapid transit system and implementing zoning laws intended to increase affordable housing. Half of all states now prevent localities from setting their own minimum wages. Nearly as many have blocked municipal paid-leave laws. Local action on gun safety, soda taxes, and LGBT rights has all been targeted, too and with increasing frequency.

To be fair, this is not just a Republican problem. Earlier this year, Democrats in New York's state capital voided a fee on plastic bags adopted by the New York City Council.

Yet the problem runs deepest in red states, and Texas provides an especially egregious example. In its regular session that ended in late spring, the state legislature stripped localities of their authority to require background checks for drivers that work for ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft, prohibited localities from adopting construction-related fees to help fund affordable housing, and limited the size of the fee that cities can charge for the use of public property.

Apparently, that wasn't enough. Governor Greg Abbott has called the legislature back for a special summer session to consider 20 other issues, many of which would further curtail local authority. One, known as the "bathroom bill," would prohibit cities from allowing transgender individuals to use the bathroom that corresponds with their identity. Business leaders have lined up against it, apparently unwilling to repeat North Carolina's disastrous experience, and the Republican house speaker has opposed it.

As a general matter, governments at all levels should stay out of bedrooms and bathrooms. And wherever possible, states should stay out of the way of cities. There will be times when regulatory uniformity is necessary, but states should give greater deference and Republicans should offer more than lip service to the principle of local control.

See the article here:
Bloomberg View: Republicans should stop blocking cities from acting - Salt Lake Tribune

Jabin Botsford | The Washington Post | Getty Images

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., left, and Senate Majority Whip Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas speak with reporters and members of the media after they and other Senate Republicans had a meeting with President Donald Trump.

A seven-year Republican effort to repeal and replace Obamacare faces a major test this week in the U.S. Senate, where lawmakers will decide whether to move forward and vote on a bill whose details and prospects are uncertain.

The Senate will decide as early as Tuesday whether to begin debating a health-care bill. But it remained unclear which version of the bill the senators would ultimately vote as lawmakers prepared to hear from U.S. President Donald Trump later on Monday.

Trump last week initially suggested he was fine with letting former President Barack Obama's signature law collapse before later urging Republican senators to hash out a deal.

The Republican president is scheduled to make a statement on health care at 3:15 p.m. (1915 GMT) following a meeting with people the White House said were harmed by the Affordable Care Act.

"Republicans have a last chance to do the right thing on Repeal & Replace after years of talking & campaigning on it," Trump tweeted on Monday.

Republicans view the 2010 health law, also known as Obamacare, as a government intrusion in the health-care market. They face pressure to make good on campaign promises to dismantle it.

But the party is divided between moderates, concerned that the Senate bill would eliminate insurance for millions of low-income Americans, and conservatives who want to see even deeper cuts to Obama's framework.

The House in May passed its health-care bill. Senate Republicans have considered two versions but have been unable to reach consensus after estimates showed they could lead to as many as 22 million fewer Americans being insured. A plan to repeal Obamacare without replacing it also ran aground.

A Senate Republican aide on Monday said the Senate will vote this week on whether to begin debate on the House-passed health-care bill. If that procedural vote succeeds, the House bill would then be open for amendment on the Senate floor.

If the Senate approves a motion to begin debating a health-care bill, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will determine which proposal has the most Republican support and move forward to a vote, Republicans said.

Republicans hold 52 of 100 Senate seats. McConnell can only afford to lose two Republican votes as Democrats are united in opposition.

Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republican leadership, acknowledged on Sunday that there remained a lack of consensus among Republicans.

"Lots of members have different ideas on how it should be best amended to replace what is really a failing Obama health-care plan," Barrasso said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

The Republican effort has also been complicated by the absence of Senator John McCain, who has been diagnosed with brain cancer and is in his home state of Arizona weighing treatment options.

Uncertainty over the health care's future has left health insurance companies and U.S. states as well as hospitals and other doctors unclear about future funding and coverage.

Public opinion polls also show Americans worried about potential changes to the health-care system.

Read the original post:
Republicans' push to roll back Obamacare faces crucial test - CNBC

The midterm election is also a referendum on the president and President Donald Trump's approval rating fell to 39 percent in the latest Gallup poll. Bloomberg's poll last week showed that health care is the most important issue for voters, and they don't like the way Trump has handled it.

Democrats Monday were out pushing a new agenda, aimed at business.Called "A Better Deal," the Democratic economic platform calls for more scrutiny of big mergers and a new independent agency to tackle the high costs of prescription drugs.

Clifton said about 90 percent of the swing in House races in midterm elections can be determined by the generic ballot question. He said in 2009, the data correctly pointed to an out-of-consensus view that the Democrats would lose badly in 2010.

"This was a big move no matter what number you use. This happens to every new president. This happened to Obama. It happened to Clinton. It happened to Reagan. It didn't happen to George W. Bush because of 9/11," Clifton said.

Clifton said while Republicans have a map advantage in both the House and Senate, midterm elections tend to have lower voter turnout and are presidential referendums.

"This is a sign the Republicans need to get their act together. They need to get policy passed," he said. "They've got some real issues, the Republicans."

More here:
Data showing Republicans could lose House majority puts pressure on Trump, GOP for tax reform - CNBC