I was out in the hallways a week ago, and a reporter asked me a reasonable question. She said: Do you think Democrats overplayed their hand in the negotiations over the DHS budget? Did you ask for too much, thus prompting the moment that we are in today as we do something unprecedented, debate using reconciliation to appropriate money for the ongoing expenses of the Federal Government? My answer was a confident no, for a few reasons. First, our asks were pretty minimal. All we wanted was to make sure that the money we were sending to the Department of Homeland Security wasn't used for illegal purposes, it wasn't being used to tear gas elementary schools or conduct 'show me your papers' raids in our cities. A lot of things around here are about politics, but this didn't really seem to be about politics. I just think that we all have an obligation to only appropriate money to the Federal Government when the Federal Government is acting lawfully.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing negotiations over the DHS budget and the use of reconciliation for federal funding.
Share
More from Chris Murphy
Sleep Apnea is a breathing disorder that involves a decrease or complete halt in airflow despite an ongoing effort to breathe.
Once an administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote, the threat extends far beyond these projects: no state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly.
Accordingly, we insist that the Postal Service abandon this proposed regulation and return to its core mission of providing universal postal services to every American. The Constitution and federal law demand nothing less.
The American people deserve to have a government that works for them—not one that is willing to push energy prices even higher and put the country’s energy security at grave risk.





