By DAVID ROGERS
Rural and anti-Wall Street politics came together for a moment Tuesday as the Senate approved an estimated $182 billion spending bill after rejecting conservative demands for still deeper appropriations cuts beyond the August debt limit agreement.
Smelling defeat, Republicans pulled their amendment to slow the pace of financial reforms being implemented by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And Democrats appeared emboldened, even welcoming the next round of the same Wall Street fight when the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission budgets come before the Senate later this week.
The Kentucky Republican, a longtime veteran of the Appropriations Committee, had encouraged Reid to proceed with the packages but then deserted him to side with tea party forces on a pivotal vote attempting to derail the entire measure Tuesday.
Seven Republicans — including Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, also a member of the party leadership — stood firm, giving Democrats a 60-39 victory. But McConnell’s performance surprised many because the tea party motion went against the August budget accords McConnell helped write and threatened to pit food stamp benefits against discretionary spending for agriculture and rural areas.
McConnell’s shifting stance also could become a problem for his fellow Kentuckian, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers.
Already frustrated by the slow pace of the Senate, Rogers wants a quick turnaround of the $182 billion bill and hopes to bring back a completed conference report by the week of Nov. 14. Attached to it will likely be a must-pass stop-gap spending bill to extend the current continuing resolution set to expire Nov. 18.
The whole process leaves little time for floor debate — a sore point for conservatives already upset with the August funding levels Rogers has moved toward. Add in the fact that major pieces — covering the Commerce, Justice and Transportation departments — have never been before the House, and this puts Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a pickle, given his promise that all spending bills will be subject to free and open debate.
“This Congress has been typified by leadership’s willingness to let the House ‘work its will,’” reads a letter to the speaker being circulated by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) with the backing of outside conservatives. “Given the likely truncated process forthcoming and the persistent attention on getting our fiscal house in order, shutting down an open floor process would clearly send taxpayers the wrong message.”
In an interview with POLITICO, Flake was not unsympathetic with Boehner’s position, given all the other year-end legislative pressures on the speaker. But the Arizona Republican said this was why he had pressed — albeit unsuccessfully — for the leadership to insist on deeper cuts, below the August spending caps.
Those caps set a ceiling of $1.043 trillion for discretionary appropriations, about $7 billion below the already reduced level for 2011 following the April budget deal. And when measured against President Barack Obama’s budget requests at the beginning of this year, the $1.043 trillion ceiling represents a nearly $80 billion cut.
In the case of the $182 billion bill, the discretionary totals are in fact down from 2011 and in many cases, significantly less than appropriations when this Congress began last January. But food-stamp costs have risen by almost $9.8 billion above 2011 levels, and this is the major reason why the total — including mandatory appropriations — is higher.
“Unless we can be open and transparent with the American people and acknowledge the fact that we are spending more, I think this is a problem,” Lee said. “We have to get the fiscal house in order, and this is how it is perpetuated, when we claim we are cutting when we are in fact spending more.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) countered that Lee’s motion was “extremely misleading” and would force cuts of as much as $7 billion just from agriculture and rural programs. This threat helped to rally support from Republicans from rural states such as Maine, Mississippi and Missouri on the Appropriations panel and helped the chairman get a 60-vote supermajority — an important marker for the future, given the Senate’s procedural rules.
In the case of the Wall Street regulatory fight, 60 votes was, in fact, the threshold that had been set for the CFTC rider first proposed by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
“I think we’ll be back with something,” Crapo told POLITICO after agreeing to withdraw his proposal in an exchange with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee with jurisdiction over the commission. But between the market turmoil and Occupy Wall Street, the politics of financial reform are such that many Democrats almost relish the chance to stand with the Dodd-Frank bill enacted last year.
Crapo denied any political motive, but when his amendment was first offered, it was widely seen as a ploy to put the squeeze on Democrats, anxious for Wall Street campaign donations. But with Democrats united — and the real risk of some Republican defections — the respected Idaho conservative risked hurting his own cause by coming out with fewer than 50 votes, let alone 60.
“It’s risky,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told POLITICO. “Losing is one thing, but losing big is another.”
Rural and anti-Wall Street politics came together for a moment Tuesday as the Senate approved an estimated $182 billion spending bill after rejecting conservative demands for still deeper appropriations cuts beyond the August debt limit agreement.
Smelling defeat, Republicans pulled their amendment to slow the pace of financial reforms being implemented by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And Democrats appeared emboldened, even welcoming the next round of the same Wall Street fight when the CFTC and Securities and Exchange Commission budgets come before the Senate later this week.
In this budget season dominated by spending cuts, both agencies are promised double-digit increases under a $21.7 billion financial services bill approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee over Republican opposition. Rather than shrink from this issue, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is now planning to include the regulators in his next, nearly $98 billion package, which will also include 2012 appropriations for energy and water programs as well as the State Department and foreign aid.
Indeed, Tuesday’s $182 billion bill is the prototype for what will be Reid’s pattern this fall — bunching diverse bills together to save time while still giving senators some alternative to the giant, governmentwide omnibus packages of the past. Speed is of the essence, but the shotgun process still risks a fight with the right in the House, and Reid clearly can’t count on consistent support from his partner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.The Kentucky Republican, a longtime veteran of the Appropriations Committee, had encouraged Reid to proceed with the packages but then deserted him to side with tea party forces on a pivotal vote attempting to derail the entire measure Tuesday.
Seven Republicans — including Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, also a member of the party leadership — stood firm, giving Democrats a 60-39 victory. But McConnell’s performance surprised many because the tea party motion went against the August budget accords McConnell helped write and threatened to pit food stamp benefits against discretionary spending for agriculture and rural areas.
McConnell’s shifting stance also could become a problem for his fellow Kentuckian, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers.
Already frustrated by the slow pace of the Senate, Rogers wants a quick turnaround of the $182 billion bill and hopes to bring back a completed conference report by the week of Nov. 14. Attached to it will likely be a must-pass stop-gap spending bill to extend the current continuing resolution set to expire Nov. 18.
The whole process leaves little time for floor debate — a sore point for conservatives already upset with the August funding levels Rogers has moved toward. Add in the fact that major pieces — covering the Commerce, Justice and Transportation departments — have never been before the House, and this puts Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a pickle, given his promise that all spending bills will be subject to free and open debate.
“This Congress has been typified by leadership’s willingness to let the House ‘work its will,’” reads a letter to the speaker being circulated by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) with the backing of outside conservatives. “Given the likely truncated process forthcoming and the persistent attention on getting our fiscal house in order, shutting down an open floor process would clearly send taxpayers the wrong message.”
In an interview with POLITICO, Flake was not unsympathetic with Boehner’s position, given all the other year-end legislative pressures on the speaker. But the Arizona Republican said this was why he had pressed — albeit unsuccessfully — for the leadership to insist on deeper cuts, below the August spending caps.
Those caps set a ceiling of $1.043 trillion for discretionary appropriations, about $7 billion below the already reduced level for 2011 following the April budget deal. And when measured against President Barack Obama’s budget requests at the beginning of this year, the $1.043 trillion ceiling represents a nearly $80 billion cut.
Nonetheless, conservatives were never happy that the number was so much higher than the $1.019 trillion target set in the House budget resolution last spring. And with deficit reduction seemingly stalled now, given the impasse over taxes, there’s renewed pressure to draw a sharper line.
The tea-party-driven vote Tuesday in the Senate reflected this sentiment, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) took the position that all appropriations — mandatory and discretionary — must be below fiscal 2011 levels, even if they are driven by benefit programs, such as food stamps, that are not under the committee’s jurisdiction.In the case of the $182 billion bill, the discretionary totals are in fact down from 2011 and in many cases, significantly less than appropriations when this Congress began last January. But food-stamp costs have risen by almost $9.8 billion above 2011 levels, and this is the major reason why the total — including mandatory appropriations — is higher.
“Unless we can be open and transparent with the American people and acknowledge the fact that we are spending more, I think this is a problem,” Lee said. “We have to get the fiscal house in order, and this is how it is perpetuated, when we claim we are cutting when we are in fact spending more.”
Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) countered that Lee’s motion was “extremely misleading” and would force cuts of as much as $7 billion just from agriculture and rural programs. This threat helped to rally support from Republicans from rural states such as Maine, Mississippi and Missouri on the Appropriations panel and helped the chairman get a 60-vote supermajority — an important marker for the future, given the Senate’s procedural rules.
In the case of the Wall Street regulatory fight, 60 votes was, in fact, the threshold that had been set for the CFTC rider first proposed by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).
“I think we’ll be back with something,” Crapo told POLITICO after agreeing to withdraw his proposal in an exchange with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee with jurisdiction over the commission. But between the market turmoil and Occupy Wall Street, the politics of financial reform are such that many Democrats almost relish the chance to stand with the Dodd-Frank bill enacted last year.
Crapo denied any political motive, but when his amendment was first offered, it was widely seen as a ploy to put the squeeze on Democrats, anxious for Wall Street campaign donations. But with Democrats united — and the real risk of some Republican defections — the respected Idaho conservative risked hurting his own cause by coming out with fewer than 50 votes, let alone 60.
“It’s risky,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told POLITICO. “Losing is one thing, but losing big is another.”
No comments:
Post a Comment