Last fall, senators were presented with Plan A: a security aid package that provided support for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Republicans rejected it, saying they’d only support a bill that included a dramatic overhaul to the nation’s immigration and border policies.
That led to Plan B: a bipartisan compromise bill that gave GOP senators what they said they wanted. Republican proceeded to kill the compromise plan they demanded and signaled support for a security aid measure that looked a lot like Plan A.
Soon after, Senate Democrats ran into some resistance from the Republican colleagues who again sought to add border-related provisions to the bill — a Politico report said the Senate GOP’s contortions were “almost comical” — but as things stand, a security aid supplemental bill appears to be in good shape. Politico also reported:
Donald Trump spent the weekend telling senators they should not pass more unconditional U.S. foreign aid. More than a dozen Republicans ignored him Sunday, moving forward on a bill to send $95 billion in aid to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. The Senate voted 67-27 to advance the foreign aid supplemental spending bill that doesn’t include border provisions, moving it another step closer to passage.
It’s not yet a done deal — there are ongoing talks about how to deal with GOP-demanded amendments — but at least for now, most on Capitol Hill believe the current bill will probably clear the upper chamber this week.
An Associated Press report added that the legislation doesn’t include the border reforms Republicans temporarily sought, but it does include security aid, funds for U.S. weapons systems, humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza, funds to target criminal organizations involved in the fentanyl production, and a grant program that helps non-profit organizations and places of worship make security enhancements in response to hate crimes.
At this point, I know what many readers are thinking. “Yes, yes, I’m sure it’s a nice bill,” you’re saying to yourself. “But if it can’t pass the House, what’s the point?”
But that’s not quite the right question. The problem isn’t assembling a majority in the lower chamber; the problem is getting the bill onto the floor for a vote in the first place.
Or put another way, the question isn’t about whether the measure can pass the House, it’s about how to give House members an opportunity to decide the bill’s fate.
By all accounts, House Speaker Mike Johnson and the GOP leadership team are not exactly championing the legislation, though a Washington Post report touched on a possible workaround.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said an “obvious choice” to improve the bill’s chances in the House would be for Democrats to use a discharge petition to circumvent Johnson’s will. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) said discussions are being held with House lawmakers to follow such a path.
Discharge petitions — which were fairly obscure before being featured in the 2003 film “Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde” — have been a frequent topic of conversation on Capitol Hill lately, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries signaled interest in the idea last week.
But I’d recommend some caution before anyone gets their hopes up.
As regular readers might recall, one of the great things about being in the majority on Capitol Hill is control of the floor: If a House speaker doesn’t like a bill, it doesn’t get a vote.
There’s one notable exception to this rule: Discharge petitions can and have been used to circumvent the majority leadership’s position and force a bill onto the floor for a vote. The basic idea behind the tactic is relatively straightforward: If a simple majority of House members sign on to a discharge petition in support of a specific piece of legislation, the measure advances to the floor for a vote, whether the sitting speaker likes it or not. As this relates to security aid, this seems like an obvious solution, but it’s not quite as simple as it might sound. To execute such a plan, there are complex procedural hurdles that would require a considerable amount of time. As an NBC News report explained last year, a discharge petition requires a bill to be stranded in committee for 30 legislative days — not to be confused with calendar days — followed by seven legislative days on the House calendar. At that point, the members behind the measure can force the speaker to hold a vote within two legislative days. But even if those procedural hurdles weren’t in the way, Democrats would still need (a) near-unanimity among their own members; and (b) a small handful of House Republicans to sign onto the petition. Those GOP votes might not exist: Zero House Republicans signed onto a discharge petition last year during the party’s debt ceiling hostage crisis, and at the time, their own country’s economy was at stake. Would they be less reckless with foreign security aid on the line? I’m skeptical. If this approach isn’t feasible, the only realistic solution is for the House speaker to let the House exercise its will. On his first full day with the speaker’s gavel, Johnson told a national television audience, “We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine.” The Louisiana Republican will likely soon have the chance to prove whether he meant what he said or not. This post updates our related earlier coverage.
Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."
Latest Post
Recommended
