Senate Blocks DHS Bill as Negotiations Continue 1 Day Before Shutdown Deadline

Joining us to discuss the latest on the Hill is Nathan Wooster, senior reporter for the Epoch Times. So Nathan, good afternoon to you. As we saw earlier in the report, some debate on the Save America Act. I just wanted to have your thoughts on that. I brought a clip here with me of House Speaker Mike Johnson commenting on it. Proof of citizenship and photo ID to vote. Everyone in the country understands the necessity of that, understands how simple it is and how important it is. And the only people that oppose it are people who want to cheat our system, who want to participate in our elections illegally, unlawfully. And that's not fair to the American people and the citizens of this country. So what is your feeling on how much of a priority is the Save Act in Washington right now? Can you talk to us about that? Well, I can tell you that after making it across the line in the House, the Senate has been under significant pressure. Led by Senator Mike Lee, there's been an effort, even including conservative activist Scott Pressler, with whom I've spoken, to try to get as many Republicans as possible on side with this. And in fact, they are, as of this moment, at or approaching 50 co-sponsors. I spoke with some holdouts, Shelley Moore Capito, Roger Wicker, both of whom ultimately did sign on. They wouldn't necessarily call themselves holdouts, but it speaks to the intensity of the drive on this issue, which, as some would tell you, a very large number of Americans generally support, at least according to the opinion polling that I have seen. I should add, though, that when it comes to getting this across the line, the issue of possibly changing the filibuster, or not outright changing the rules, but using something known as the standing filibuster, it's not obvious that there's enough traction for that in the Senate on the Republican side. So do you know if Leader John Thune is seriously considering this, trying to change the filibuster, to try and try to get it passed? I mean, how serious are we talking about? Well, the timeline here is interesting, because not that long ago, Annalena Luna and Tim Burchett in the House, they ultimately ended up being willing to support a bill because they were told that the Senate would consider this or act on this filibuster issue. The standing filibuster, just to put it in fairly simple terms, it would exhaust the filibuster. This is something that would take up a lot of floor time as Democrats basically just continue talking for an extended period, something that Republicans and Democrats have contemplated in the past, depending upon who's in the majority in the Senate and who controls the presidency. But as Thune and others have stressed, this is something that would, in fact, take a lot of time. On the other hand, you have people like Mike Lee suggesting, as he did on a post on X, that, well, if we can't deliver on this issue, what is more important really for our voters? So we're seeing a fair amount of pushback. On the other hand, this definitely is under discussion. That's what Shelley Moore Capito told me. She right now is one of the people uncomfortable with the idea of modifying the filibuster. But I got the sense that maybe at some future point, if there's buy-in, we could see something like a standing filibuster. And let me tell you, that would be very interesting to watch, the amount of speechifying, the amount of sheer talking that would be going on in Washington. Maybe not such a change of pace, a lot of talking in Washington, but a real test for a certain level of commitment to the Save America Act. So this is one of the priorities for lawmakers. Another one, of course, lawmakers are trying to avoid a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, right? I wanted to talk to you about this as well. Tomorrow is the deadline. Where do things stand right now, Nathan? Well, I have some breaking news, which is that Leader Thune has said that the Senate is going to enter a recess now, just hours really, before we will have this lapse in funding for DHS, which includes not just ICE, not just the Border Patrol, but also FEMA, TSA, and in fact, the Secret Service. So that came after a test vote, an attempt to get the appropriations bill for DHS across the line. This ended up failing on what was basically a party-line vote, though John Fetterman actually broke ranks, supported the appropriations bill. There are talks going on. The White House just very recently released its own proposal, its own text. Democrats have been critical of that. Their own set of demands include some things that likely Republicans would find it very hard to get on side with. More specifically, we have things like a demand to basically end the masking of ICE and other federal agents from Democrats. Democrats also pushing for some far-reaching reforms to warrants that defenders of ICE would say might just end up gutting their ability to actually conduct immigration law enforcement. But one interesting tidbit that I picked up from The Hill just a few minutes ago was Chris Murphy. He's a Democrat, someone who's been very critical of the administration, saying that he was open, perhaps, or suggesting he might be, to the notion of a continuing resolution, a short-term funding patch, and then having separately carved out discussions on CBP, Border Patrol, and ICE. So those would not be funded, but everything else would be. Worth keeping in mind, of course, that even if we were to see this funding lapse, ICE and Border Patrol are amply funded through last year's one big, beautiful bill. So I look at that, and I think, is it possible that even as the Senate is preparing to leave town, we could be seeing some 11th-hour openness to negotiations from the Democrats? Time will tell, but very interesting time here on The Hill. Okay, so there are a couple of things here. I want to follow up on your tidbit there. It's very interesting. I just want to ask you, how unified, how united are Democrats right now? I would say, listening to Leader Hakeem Jeffries in the House, just this morning in a press conference, he said that he and the Senate, they are united in the notion of not going forward with any funding unless they see what they believe to be very important reforms. On the other hand, we did see in the Senate just now, John Fetterman breaking with his party. I get the sense that in the House, there are moderates who, under the right circumstances, could be talked into something. And separately, I actually spoke with the House Republican Appropriations Chair, Tom Cole, who reminded us that prior to all of this happening, the drama over DHS in the Senate, the House passed that DHS bill. Rosa DeLauro, actually the person who originated that idea I mentioned just now of setting ICE and CBP aside, she's really been more supportive than one might expect of some sort of compromise, but something still that would bring about attention to ICE and Border Patrol, the issues that Democrats have really been focusing on. So to answer your question, there's a significant amount of unity. On the other hand, moments like that, other comments I've heard as certain, depending upon who you speak to, openness perhaps to a funding patch, that tells me that there might be room to work with. Of course, we are very close to the deadline. I think that if I were advising someone on how to expect this will play out, I would expect the government to not entirely shut down, to have a very small partial shutdown, a small percentage of the budget. But again, things like FEMA, the TSA, as well as some of the funding out there for ICE and for Border Patrol. Yeah, you're right. We are very close to the deadline. And you mentioned earlier potentially some 11th hour discussions. In your view, are there any realistic paths right now? Are you still holding hope here before the February 13th deadline? I should tell you the recess announcement from Leader Thune, that certainly sounds like an attempt to end this as it is, both sides perhaps accepting the notion of an impending government shutdown. On the other hand, on the House side, we have gotten signals, for example, from Jeffries and from others, that there might be votes, might be something happening tomorrow. And it's possible that has changed just in a few minutes. Things are breaking very quickly here on this issue. But I would imagine that right now some of the participants in talks over the DHS text from the White House, for example, on the Democratic side, you have Gary Peters of Michigan. On the Republican side, you have Katie Britt. There might be conversations happening at an intensity that didn't exist before. But really, to a large extent, all we can do is speculate and look at things like, for example, Tom Holman announcing the end of that surge in Minnesota, and ask ourselves, is this something not only that the Democrats might accept as a good faith move from the administration? Is it also something that could kind of reset the public narrative around a lapse in funding for DHS? People looking at that now weeks after the shooting of Alex Pretty, they might think, well, who is ultimately responsible for this, if it seems as though the administration has been pumping the brakes? I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats are thinking about that as well. Well, very important information you shared with us today, Nathan. Thank you so much. Absolutely. Glad to join you, Don.