We can pay for the freakin farm bill and entertain a gas tax holiday - but the Blue Dogs get all upset about giving educational benefits to returning soldiers??
SERIOUSLY.
CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION
May 7, 2008 – 10:55 p.m.
‘Blue Dogs’ Force Delay of War Bill
By Josh Rogin and David Clarke, CQ Staff
House Democratic leaders Wednesday faced an unexpectedly stubborn revolt by the conservative Blue Dog Coalition that forced them to postpone plans to bring the supplemental war spending bill to the House floor this week.
Republican delay tactics also contributed to the bill’s delay, by eating up valuable floor time that Democrats needed to clear other priorities before waging their supplemental fight.
The Blue Dogs, troubled that the spending package includes enhanced education benefits for veterans not offset by other spending reductions, warned Wednesday that they may vote against the rule for debate over the measure, something no Republicans were expected to support. If the rule is not adopted, the Democratic leadership’s carefully crafted plan for adopting the overall package would collapse.
“I would think that they would have a difficult time getting a bill to the floor that creates a new entitlement,” said Allen Boyd, D-Fla., a leader of the 47-member Blue Dog Coalition.
Despite appeals by House leaders to the Blue Dogs not to oppose the plan to bring the supplemental bill to the floor on Thursday, there was no breakthrough, and House leadership aides said the measure would not reach the floor until next week.
Earlier, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had argued that “pay-as-you-go” rules, which require offsetting new mandatory spending, should not apply to the portion of the war supplemental covering new benefits for veterans.
“We are going to spend nearly $200 billion on the war in Iraq, and it’s not paid for. So I think it’s OK for us not to pay for the education of our troops when they come home,’’ she said.
Despite the Blue Dog threat, Pelosi said she intended to bring the spending bill to the floor Thursday, unless that plan was held up by Republicans, who have been using procedural moves to delay floor action in protest against Democrats’ closed process for moving the supplemental.
But hours later, the Rules Committee sent out a notice that it did not plan to consider a rule for debate of the supplemental measure until next week — a clear indication that the House leadership’s appeals to the Blue Dogs had failed.
Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee prepared to mark up Thursday its own version of the supplemental war funding bill, which is expected to include billions of dollars in added domestic spending.
Blue Dogs ‘Unified’ and ‘Upset’
Blue Dogs have made the pay-as-you-go rule, which requires new mandatory spending or tax cuts to be fully offset, their signature issue. They argue that attaching the veterans’ educational benefits, which were taken from Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s GI Bill (S 22), to an emergency spending bill violates the pay-as-you-go principle that Democrats have heralded as proof that they govern in a fiscally responsible manner.
“I’ve never seen the Blue Dogs this unified, this upset,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.
House Majority leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said he was sympathetic to the Blue Dogs’ concern about adding the new veterans benefits even though they don’t technically violate the pay-as-you-go rule.
“It clearly is an entitlement, and their concern is justified,” Hoyer said.
But Hoyer said he hoped Blue Dogs would not help defeat the rule for considering the supplemental and spent time Wednesday in closed discussions with the fiscally conservative Democrats.
At the same time, members of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, while not threatening to torpedo the bill, wrote to party leaders Wednesday asking for a vote on an amendment by Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would “fence off” the war funding and designate that it could be used only to pay for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
“The American people put the Democrats in the majority to end the occupation, not to extend the occupation,” the letter stated.
As Democratic leaders juggled these competing demands, Republicans continued to challenge Democratic assertions that the domestic spending in the supplemental measure was limited and frugal.
Democrats said Wednesday that the supplemental spending measure would total $183.7 billion and that the veterans’ benefits would cost $720 million in the first two years.
Republicans dismissed those figures, countering that the veterans’ spending would cost $51.1 billion over 10 years if it were allowed to continue. Pointing to what they said were other discrepancies in the Democrats’ calculations, they clocked the total cost of the supplemental at $245 billion.
As Republicans stepped up their delaying tactics to protest the Democrats’ supplemental plan, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, vowed to continue to obstruct business on the House floor.
“At some point, the majority has an obligation to treat the minority with respect,” he said. “It is not happening, and that’s why we’re going to continue to wage this fight.”
Senators to Add Domestic Spending
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee prepared to mark up its own version of the bill on Thursday.
The Senate panel was expected to report out two amendments — one with war funding and another with domestic spending. Chairman Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., chose to defer consideration of Iraq policy language to the floor debate.
Byrd’s effort may prove to be nothing more than an exercise in regular appropriations procedure, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has made it clear that he intends to bring the House bill to the floor.
Byrd then would need 60 votes to substitute his committee’s mark for the House bill, which seems unlikely.
Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., expressed the hope that some Republicans would support including the committee’s work on the floor.
“The question is whether or not we can come up with [a version] that has bipartisan appeal,” said Durbin, who added he was talking with Republicans to see if there were provisions that could garner their support.
But Senate Republicans signaled they, too, might not support Byrd’s version of the war spending bill, which appeared certain to have much more domestic spending than the House bill.
“There’s too much domestic spending, but we just don’t know yet what we’re going to do,” said Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.
Byrd released some details of his committee’s bill Wednesday evening. Like the House’s bill, the Senate version includes provisions for unemployment insurance, veterans’ education benefits and delays for seven Medicaid regulations. Not counting those provisions, the Senate provides $193 billion, about $9 billion more than the House and President Bush’s $183.8 billion request.
The Senate version would also fund a variety of items that Bush did not request and that the House did not include, such as law enforcement grants, highways and the Food and Drug Administration.
The bill would provide $10.4 billion for recovery efforts from hurricanes and other natural disasters. The House version included $5.8 billion for levees in fiscal 2009, matching Bush’s request.
The bill also would provides $490 million for Byrne formula grants that assist state and local law enforcement agencies. The Federal Highway Administration emergency relief program would receive $451 million. The FDA would receive $275 million, including $125 million for food safety and $100 million for medical product and drug safety activities.
No comments:
Post a Comment