House Votes on $1.2 Trillion Spending Package

On Thursday, Republicans are set to hold a full House vote on a $1.2 trillion spending package that includes funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This comes after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) worked late into the night to address a rebellion concerning Republican energy needs in the Midwest.

The House Rules Committee has approved two spending bills aimed at preventing a government shutdown that is scheduled for January 30. While this compromise seems to have eased concerns among Midwestern Republicans, there’s still significant dissent from both progressives and conservatives regarding DHS’s actions related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

One of the bills focuses on funding for the Departments of War, Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services, while the other specifically concerns the DHS, which encompasses ICE.

During a crucial procedural vote on Wednesday night, up to 20 Republican lawmakers threatened to scrap the spending package unless a clause was added to allow year-round sales of E15, a type of ethanol-blended gasoline. Currently, sales are restricted under the Clean Air Act due to regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Johnson emerged from the rules committee on Thursday, announcing he had reached an agreement with dissenting members. “This is a very positive development,” he remarked.

He further stated, “We decided late last night to establish an E15 National Energy Council among conference delegates. This council will consist of members with various perspectives, as well as stakeholders like refiners.”

Johnson mentioned that the council would reassess the demands from the Midwest GOP in light of existing environmental safeguards. While he expressed optimism about the discussions, he didn’t provide specific hopes for resolutions.

The arrangement mandates that the task force convene regularly next month, aiming to propose legislation by February 25.

Once finalized, the bill will proceed to a “rules vote,” which allows the full House to determine if they will debate the proposed legislation or set of bills. Even if bipartisan support exists, voting on the proposed regulations tends to lean along party lines—Johnson might proceed with the bill even if he faces opposition from a couple of Republican members.

If successfully passed, the two spending packages will later be combined for Senate consideration.

However, there are still questions about whether House Republicans can reconcile the party on other aspects of the bill. Conservatives are raising concerns over new requirements for ICE, which were requested by Democrats. These include mandates for ICE officers to wear body cameras and undergo training to improve public interactions.

Moreover, the suggested funding levels would largely remain consistent with fiscal year 2025, while reducing some financial allocations for ICE removal efforts.

Still, numerous Democrats argue this isn’t sufficient; many oppose the bill on grounds that it continues ICE’s operations unrestrained, especially in light of the recent incident involving the death of Renee Nicole Goode during an encounter with ICE agents in Minnesota.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) emphasized, “All the guardrails in the world mean nothing if the administration won’t adhere to the law. Lawmakers must consider what’s best for their districts when voting.”

Democrats have made attempts to infuse progressive priorities into the bill during the House Rules Committee meeting, including proposals targeting Trump’s policies on Greenland, Venezuela, and Iceland.

Some amendments sought to prevent funds from being allocated for military actions against NATO allies or prohibit federal funds from being used in operations against Venezuela as a response to Trump’s military agenda towards President Nicolas Maduro.

While there have been calls to reduce the DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s salary or possibly eliminate agency funding altogether, these amendments turned out to be more symbolic than impactful, ultimately not making it into the final bill.