From the Austin American Statesman (January 12, 2015): Comptroller predicts better-than-expected growth in Texas economy

It didn't work out this way though.

- Click here for the article.

Plummeting oil prices have incited much speculation in recent weeks about how much Texas’ coffers might suffer and how much less money might be available to a Republican-dominated Legislature that wants to cut taxes significantly and also spend on things like roads.

On Monday, freshman Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar settled the deliberation with his much-anticipated official estimate of how much the state will bring in and have to spend over the next two years. And it was higher than many expected it to be, although tempered because of low energy prices.

Hegar’s approximation – formulated, he has said, under much and diverse advisement – showed that state lawmakers, who convene at noon on Tuesday, will have $113 billion in general revenue to spend on the 2016-17 budget. That is a sizable $18 billion more than general revenue spending in the current two-year budget cycle, which ends Aug. 31.

The estimate assumes oil prices – currently at less than $50 a barrel – will be $64 per barrel on average for current fiscal year, which ends Aug. 31, and to nearly $70 per barrel by the end of 2017. The last revenue estimate, released in 2013, assumed taxable oil prices of about $80 per barrel.

Hegar estimates the state will have $221 billion to spend from all funds, including federal money. The current budget spends about $200 billion.

As Hegar has previously asserted, his estimate shows that expansion of other sectors of the economy such as construction that will benefit from low fuel prices will somewhat buoy the declining tax revenue that will come with an inevitable slow-down in drilling. His estimate assumes that oil and gas taxes will decline 14.3 percent in 2016-17, bringing in $5.7 billion over the biennium, while sales tax — the state’s largest source of tax revenue — will increase by 8.9 percent, generating $61.2 billion.

“This revenue estimate anticipates a moderated yet expanding Texas economy and revenue collections through fiscal 2017, in part due to the uncertainty around oil prices and the possibility of slow global economic growth,” Hegar said in a statement.

Budget experts at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation and the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities described Hegar’s estimate as healthy.

Eva DeLuna Castro of CPPP said it was a little higher than they expected, noting there hasn’t been any wiggle room in the overly conservative estimates of the recent past and that this one appears to more closely track actual past tax collections. Susan Combs, Hegar’s predecessor, came under fire for low-balling a revenue estimate in 2011 that helped inspire billions in cuts to schools and health care.

“It’s a good, strong number,” said Talmadge Heflin, the director of the Center for Fiscal Policy at TPPF, said of Hegar’s estimate. He said the sum would be plenty for tax cuts.

Roll Call: House Easily Passes 10-Week Stopgap Spending Bill

They join the Senate - see story below.

- Click here for the article.

The House on a 342-85 vote easily passed a 10-week stopgap spending bill late Wednesday, clearing the measure for President Barack Obama’s signature with two days to spare before a government shutdown.

The Obama administration voiced support for passage of the continuing resolution in a statement of administration policy. The House was expected to adjourn later Wednesday and not return until after the November elections.

The House vote, as well as an earlier Senate vote of 72-26, were in contrast to weeks of battles over whether money to fight the Zika virus should be made available to Planned Parenthood locations in Puerto Rico and over emergency aid for stricken Flint, Michigan. Congressional leaders smoothed over a final impasse by committing to include financial help for Flint's contaminated water system in subsequent legislation expected to clear in the lame-duck session after the elections.

But it’s clear that as time ran out to get the stopgap spending bill to the president, other issues that were sticking points will pop up again in spending negotiations on tap for December.

“This short time frame will allow Congress to complete our annual appropriations work without jeopardizing important government functions,” House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers said of the CR, shortly before the chamber cleared the measure.

In addition to continuing fiscal 2016 levels for programs through Dec. 9 — though that level was knocked down by just under half a percent to fit under budget caps — the package also includes $1.1 billion in funding to respond to the Zika virus, $500 million in flood relief for Louisiana and other states, and full fiscal 2017 appropriations for military construction and veterans.

During floor debate, Rogers touted the fiscal 2017 Military Construction-VA bill, which he said if enacted would represent the first time since 2009 that lawmakers have pushed through a regular appropriations bill that resulted from a bicameral conference.

“It’s not perfect, but it ensures we meet our nation’s critical needs,” the Kentucky Republican said, adding, “At this point, it is what we must do to fulfill our congressional responsibility, to keep the lights on in our government.”

From the Washington Post: Senate passes bill to avert government shutdown after Flint deal struck

As usual, appropriations bills will not be passed in time for the new fiscal year, instead a continuing resolution will be passed.

For detail: What Is a Continuing Resolution?

Now the House must vote on it.

- Click here for the article.

The Senate cemented an agreement Wednesday to avoid an Oct. 1 government shutdown after House Republicans allowed a vote on federal aid to address the water crisis in Flint, Mich., removing a major obstacle in negotiations.

Senators voted 72-15 to pass a stopgap measure that will keep the government open until Dec. 9, giving appropriators time to pass 2017 spending bills. The measure also provides $1.1 billion in funds to address the Zika virus and $500 million in emergency flood relief.
Both the Zika and flood funding were subject to long and painstaking negotiations between majority Republicans and minority Democrats, but it was funding for Flint that threatened to push matters past the brink.

Democrats made clear earlier this week they would not support the spending bill unless Republicans moved to guarantee Flint aid, while GOP leaders countered the Senate had approved Flint aid earlier this month in a separate water projects bill.

The impasse was broken late Tuesday after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) struck a deal allowing a vote to attach $170 million in Flint relief to the House version of the water bill. That bill is expected to pass late Wednesday; the stopgap spending measure is expected to pass shortly afterward.
Ryan, addressing the Economic Club of Washington Wednesday morning, said the amendment would “help unlock” the spending bill. “We should be able to move this through, I believe, before Friday,” he said.

By Wednesday morning, Senate Democrats were satisfied that, thanks to the House deal, Flint would be addressed once Congress returns after the Nov. 8 election.

“I am convinced that there is going to be help for Flint in the lame duck,” Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor. “They’ve been waiting for help, they deserve help, and I am very happy it is going to come.”

Wednesday’s Senate votes capped weeks of frustration for Republicans, who complained that Democrats had engaged in bad-faith spending negotiations aimed at keeping vulnerable GOP incumbents in Washington rather than on the campaign trail.

From Marijuana.com: Congress OKs Medical Marijuana for Military Veterans

The times they are a-changin'

Hat tip to CJT.

- Click here for article.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives both took action to increase military veterans’ access to medical marijuana on Thursday.

By a vote of 89-8, senators approved a bill containing language preventing the Department of Veterans Affairs (V.A.) from spending money to enforce a current policy that prohibits its government doctors from filling out medical marijuana recommendation forms in states where the drug is legal.

The House approved an amendment to accomplish the same goal by a vote of 233-189 earlier in the day.

“We are pleased that both the House and Senate have made it clear that the Veterans Administration should not punish doctors for recommending medical cannabis to their veteran patients,” Mike Liszewski, government affairs director for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), told Marijuana.com. “Combat veterans are disproportionately affected by several conditions that medical cannabis can effectively treat, including chronic pain, PTSD and traumatic brain injury. We anticipate this amendment will reach the president, and once signed, it will give V.A. physicians another tool in their toolbox to treat the healthcare needs of America’s veterans.”

The provisions are now part of a larger bills to fund the V.A. and other government agencies through next year. The medical cannabis language was attached to the Senate legislation last month in bipartisan vote of 20-10 in the Appropriations Committee, and did not require a separate vote on the floor.

From Politico: Senate rejects all gun bills

More on last night's vote:


- Click here for the article.

The Senate voted down four separate gun measures Monday in the aftermath of the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history — showing the partisan paralysis over gun control has barely moved on Capitol Hill despite the stream of continued gun violence across the country.

Lawmakers took up two separate issues involving gun regulations: how to improve the nation’s background check system for those who want to purchase firearms, and how to ensure those with terrorist ties do not obtain a gun. But those questions remained unresolved by lawmakers as of Monday night.

Instead, Democrats made it clear they want to make it as painful for Republicans to oppose their gun amendments, whether through a flood of advocacy calls to their Senate offices or at the ballot box in November.

For a look at the actual votes, click here: Senate Roll Call Votes.

The votes were not for a unique stand alone bill on gun control. Instead they were offered as amendment to one of the appropriations bills that has to passed later this year. Click here for it:

- H.R.2578 - Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.

For more on the appropriations process:

- House Committee on Appropriations.
- Congress.Gov: Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2017.

Obama Vetoes Defense Bill.

Last week in checks and balances:

The bill is officially called H.R.1735 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016. This link take you to Congress.gov's page on the bill and its process. The bill would authorize appropriations for defense for the current fiscal year. Since the year began October 1st, defense spending is covered under the continuing appropriations bill passed in late September. As 2305 students know, the bill goes back to the House and then the Senate for a possible override.

From The Hill: Obama vetoes defense bill.

Obama argues the bill irresponsibly skirts spending caps adopted in 2011 by putting $38 billion into a war fund not subject to the limits, a move he called a "gimmick." He has called on Congress to increase both defense and nondefense spending. 

“Let’s have a budget that properly funds our national security as well as economic security, let’s make sure that we’re able in a constructive way to reform our military spending to make it sustainable over the long term,” Obama said.

The president also objects to language in the bill that requires the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison to remain open. Republican leaders expressed outrage with Obama’s decision to veto the bill, pointing out that it puts a scheduled pay raise for troops, among other policy changes, at risk.

“By placing domestic politics ahead of our troops, President Obama has put America’s national security at risk,” Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. “This indefensible veto blocks pay and vital tools for our troops while Iranian terrorists prepare to gain billions under the president’s nuclear deal."

The move forces Congress to revisit the bill and send it back to the president. The military will continue to operate under last year’s defense policy if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement. Republicans have pledged to attempt to override Obama’s veto, but it’s unlikely they have the votes to do so.

The Senate voted 70-27 to pass the bill, and overriding the veto would require 67 votes. But Democratic leaders have said some members would switch their vote to avoid defying the president. The House vote count, 270-156, would not be enough to override a veto, which would take 290 votes.

 The NYT editorializes in favor of the veto and walks through the reasoning behind it here.

For more:

- Politico: Obama vetoes massive defense bill over budget spat.
- The Blaze: Obama Vetoes Defense Bill Over Gitmo and His Demands for More Non-Defense Spending.

For a look at the status of all the appropriations bills click here.

A federal district judge allows another lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act to go forward

ScotusBlog describes the case - and states that it breaks new Constitutional ground. This should be of interest to 2305 students who are starting to dig into Article One of the U.S. Constitution. It involves who controls the national purse strings. this story also illustrates the checks and balances - albeit one of the more unusual ones.

- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the ruling.

It looks at a key part of Article One - one we talked about in class last week, the appropriations clause - and asks whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch in how it is implementing the law it passed a few years back.

From the decision: 

Article I of the United States Constitution established the Congress, which comprises a House of Representatives and a Senate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Only these two bodies, acting together, can pass laws—including the laws necessary to spend public money. In this respect, Article I is very clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.

Through this lawsuit, the House of Representatives complains that Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jacob Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, and their respective departments (collectively the Secretaries) have spent billions of unappropriated dollars to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The House further alleges that Secretary Lew and Treasury have, under the guise of implementing regulations, effectively amended the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate by delaying its effect and narrowing its scope.  

The Secretaries move to dismiss, arguing that the House lacks standing to sue. They argue that only the Executive has authority to implement the laws, and urge this Court to stay out of a quintessentially political fight in which the House is already well armed. The House opposes, adamant that it has been injured in several concrete ways, none of which can be ameliorated through the usual political processes. The only issue before the Court is whether the House can sue the Secretaries; the merits of this lawsuit await another day

And the judge says it can go forward with that issue.

ScotusBlog explains the nuances of the House of Representatives complaint:

As part of the ACA’s policy of helping millions of lower-income Americans to obtain health insurance at affordable rates, the law has a variety of subsidy provisions. The Supreme Court in June upheld the system that provides lower-income consumers with a form of tax credit to help them afford policies that are sold on insurance marketplaces (or “exchanges”); that financial provision is not at issue in the House’s lawsuit. But the lawsuit explicitly targets a mechanism to encourage health insurance companies to reduce the costs of coverage for lower-income individuals.

The House claimed in court that, although Congress has in fact voted the funds to pay for the subsidy system keyed to the insurance exchanges, it has never approved any funds to cover the expense of the cost-sharing approach — technically, the “cost-sharing offsets.” The ACA required insurance companies taking part in the new program to specifically reduce the co-pays charged to consumers when they visit doctors’ offices or other health facilities. The federal government then steps in to reimburse the insurers for absorbing those costs.

In going to court, the House contended that the Obama administration has asked for, but never obtained, actual legislation appropriating those reimbursement funds, but instead has simply taken the money out of accounts at the Treasury and sent checks to the insurers. This, it argued, was a direct violation of the Constitution’s command that no federal funds may be spent unless approved, in advance, by Congress.

The administration has argued in response that the ACA itself provided all the authority that the government needed to finance the cost-sharing provision, so there was no need to ask Congress explicitly to put up the money. Officials also have disputed the House claim that they did, in fact, ask for appropriations.

Will there be a government shutdown over funding to Planned Parenthood?

Some news sources think that is where Congress is headed. The Republican rank and file seems to angling for one, the leadership seems resistant, but that may lead to a move against them - John Boehner's speakership may be on the line

- Politico: Countdown to shutdown begins: It's not clear how Republican leaders plan to resolve the standoff over Planned Parenthood funding.

Congress returned from its long summer vacation Tuesday to an all-out, three-week sprint to avert a government shutdown – and no apparent plan yet to quell the conservative rebellion over Planned Parenthood that has dramatically increased the odds of a closure.

The mad dash – just 11 legislative work days left to solve the shutdown crisis, in between major votes on the Iran nuclear deal and the first-ever papal address to a joint session of Congress – presents a major test for Republican leaders in both chambers who vowed to end crisis-driven legislating.

The smart money is on Congress doing what it typically does when it’s up against a deadline: Find a short-term fix and delay the fight for later. But the dynamics are so fluid and passions high that no one truly knows how it will wind up on Sept. 30, the final day of the fiscal year and last day to extend funding or have the government close its doors.

- National Journal: Republican Leaders’ Stressful September: They’ve already lost the Iran fight, and more infighting over Planned Parenthood funding awaits.

Repub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al lead­ers are fa­cing a stress­ful Septem­ber, burdened with a best-case out­come of main­tain­ing the status quo in gov­ern­ment fund­ing and a worst-case out­come of an­oth­er gov­ern­ment shut­down.

Adding to their head­aches, a flurry of Demo­crat­ic sen­at­ors pledged late last week to sup­port the Ir­an deal, elim­in­at­ing the pos­sib­il­ity that Con­gress could over­ride a pres­id­en­tial veto of a res­ol­u­tion dis­ap­prov­ing of the mul­tina­tion­al deal.

And as dis­sat­is­fac­tion with their lead­er­ship peaks on the right, it re­mains un­clear what con­sequences could arise for top Re­pub­lic­ans in they fail to de­liv­er on sought-after con­ser­vat­ive de­mands, par­tic­u­larly strip­ping Planned Par­ent­hood of roughly $500 mil­lion in an­nu­al fed­er­al fund­ing.

- The Atlantic: The Plot Against Planned Parenthood and John Boehner.

It has become an annual harbinger of autumn in this era of divided government: The calendar swings from August to September, Congress returns from its long summer break, and Republican leaders try to figure out how to keep the federal lights on past the end of the month.

In 2013, John Boehner gave in to Senator Ted Cruz and his conservative allies in the House, and the government shut down for two weeks in a failed fight over Obamacare. A year ago, Boehner and Mitch McConnell succeeded in twiceputting off a losing battle over immigration until after they could wrest control of the Senate from the Democrats.

With federal funding set to expire on September 30, conservatives are once again demanding a standoff that Boehner and McConnell are hell-bent on avoiding. This time around, the issue that might prevent an orderly—if temporary—extension of funding is Planned Parenthood. Along with Cruz, House conservativesinsist that any spending bill sent to President Obama’s desk explicitly prohibit taxpayer dollars from going to the women’s health organization, which has come under fire over undercover videos that purportedly show its officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue. Democrats have rallied around Planned Parenthood, and an effort to ax its approximately $500 million in annual funding is likely to fall short, either by running into a filibuster in the Senate or a presidential veto.

Looking ahead to the US Budgeting Process

The following page from Congress.gov lists the various appropriations bills that are waiting to be considered one Congress ends its recess. None are close to being passed.

- Click here to see them.

The U.S. Constitution does not contain the word Budget - but it does state that money cannot be drawn from the treasury with an appropriation made by Congress. That what these are. We will discus them further because the national government's fiscal year is about to end, and if these are not passed - or something called a supplemental appropriations is not passed - money cannot be drawn and affected agencies have to be shutdown.

The fiscal year starts October 1st.

For more background and relevant links:

- Wikipedia: Appropriations bill.
- Wikipedia: United States budget process.
- U.S. Budget for fiscal year 2016.
- 2015 Economic Report of the President.
- US House: Committee on Appropriations.
- US Senate: Committee on Appropriations.          

What is a continuing resolution?

The NYT provides an overview of the politics associated with the continuing resolution just passed by the US House. The one that also cuts funding for ObamaCare.

But first - what is a continuing resolution (also referred to as continuing appropriations) and why do they matter?

Here's a definition from the US Senate website:

continuing resolution/continuing appropriations - Legislation in the form of a joint resolution enacted by Congress, when the new fiscal year is about to begin or has begun, to provide budget authority for Federal agencies and programs to continue in operation until the regular appropriations acts are enacted.

It all comes down to the budgetary process in the US, and that fact that the Constitution stipulates that money cannot be drawn from the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by law - the is the Appropriations Clause.

Both the House and Senate have Appropriations Committees that oversee this process.

Aside from that - as we will soon see - there is nothing in the Constitution about a budgetary process. One only began to be established in the early years of 20th Century when efforts were made - driven by progressives - to professionalize the governing process. This includes the establishment of Budget Committees in the House and Senate. They are in charge of determining how Congress wants funding to be directed - sort of - because some funding is mandatory. This is referred to as the authorization process of the budgetary process. We will cover this soon enough.

- Here's the Wikipedia on the US budget process.

But none of this really matters here. What matter is the appropriations process and the fact that we are near the end of the fiscal year. What is that? Again, from the Senate:

fiscal year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2013 begins on October 1, 2012 and ends on September 30, 2013. Congress passes appropriations legislation to fund the government for every fiscal year.

- Click here for a CRS report on the process.
- And here for another CRS report - a bit more thorough.

We are coming up on the end of the 2012-2013 fiscal year. That's what the media really refers to when it says that the US government is about to run out of money. In theory, the new fiscal year 2013-2014 cannot begin, or at least money for that period cannot be drawn from the Treasury, unless appropriations bills are passed. These are to provide funding through the next fiscal year.

As we will see when we discuss the budget, this seldom really happens. Conflicts over spending usually result in these bills not being passed in time. So how does the US government get the money it is required to spend due to existing law?

From the continuing resolutions. These are bills that provide short term funding for government when the appropriations bills are not passed. So what the House passed was such a bill, but with a condition - that funding for Obamacare be terminated - which won't happen of course.

We'll follow this over the next couple of weeks. Since war does not appear to be likely with Syria - this is the most exciting stuff we have going on.

Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012

The US Senate passed its version of this bill last week, the House will follow at some point.

Let's walk through the bill making process in class. You can find the steps detailed on Govtrack and Thomas.

We'll walk through the commentary about the bill soon enough, but this was one of those large omnibus bills that dealt with multiple issues that are being unpacked by the media. All of this can be negated by the House. Over a dozen Republicans voted for the bill - that may be les likely to happen in the more partisan House.

From the Washington Post: House Republicans jockey to influence the next budget

As we mentioned in 2302, budget battles often become attempts to change public policy. The next round of appropriations bills prove the point:

Congress has avoided a shutdown over the budget for now. But a small faction of House Republicans is already tussling over how to position the party for the next round. House GOP appropriations leaders have released a draft bill to fund labor, health, and education for the 2012 fiscal year. While it’s still just a piece of the overall budget, it’s already making some battle lines clear. In fact, the bill’s biggest obstacle so far has come from within the House GOP itself.
Authored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), the bill contains some major spending cuts that would set up a big showdown with Democrats should the GOP as a whole get behind it. It zeroes out funds for Obama’s “Race to the Top” education program and Title X family planning; cuts funds for the National Labor Relations Board by 17 percent; tightens Pell Grant eligibility; and slashes $8.6 billion in an effort to block the implementation of health-care reform. It also brings back recently contentious fights, eliminating all federal funding for NPR and Americorps and trying to reinstate the so-called “Stupak amendment” that nearly derailed the Affordable Care Act.

- Wikipedia: Denny Rehberg.
- House Page: Denny Rehberg
- House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education.

Details about the $38b cuts are just now being revealed

Some info from the Washington Post.

And a bit more from the Atlantic:

Here are the biggest cuts listed by House Appropriations Committee Republicans:

•$6.516 billion from Defense Department and Air Force construction. This includes $6.237 billion from Defense Dept. construction and another $279 million from the Air Force's Overseas Contingency Operations fund.
•$6.2 billion from Census funds. Makes sense, given that the 10-year Census is now complete.
•$3.13 billion from highway-funding rescissions (highway money that hasn't yet been given out in contracts) and old highway earmarks
•$2.9 billion from high-speed rail funds
•$1.885 billion from Commerce, Justice and Science rescissions
•$1.045 billion from HIV, AIDS, viral hepatitis, STD, and TB prevention programs under the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor
•$997 million Clean and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds under the Interior Department
•$942 million community development fund under the Department of Housing and Urban Development
•$812 million from General Services Agency construction funds (GSA handles contracting for construction of government buildings)
•$786 million from FEMA first-responder grants
•$638 million from Defense Environmental Cleanup

A Few Random Posts on Friday's Agreement on Appropriations

- Before Deal, Angst Over Effects of Shutdown.

- Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown.

- Republicans and Democrats Alike Claim Successes in Averting a Federal Shutdown.

- President Adopts a Measured Course to Recapture the Middle.

- Next on the Agenda for Washington: Fight Over Debt.

- Obama to Offer Details of Plan to Reduce U.S. Budget Deficit.

Two Week Stopgap Spending Measure Signed In to Law - COnflict Between House and Senate Escalates.

From the NYT:

President Obama called on Wednesday for high-level negotiations to bridge major budgetary differences between Congressional Republicans and Democrats after the Senate passed a measure to buy at least two more weeks for talks.

After the Senate’s bipartisan 91-to-9 vote in a favor of a bill that keeps federal agencies open through March 18 while enacting $4 billion in new spending cuts, Mr. Obama urged House and Senate leaders to meet with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and two top aides to work out a longer-term budget agreement. . . .

The two-week measure approved Wednesday includes a down payment on those cuts by slicing $4 billion from spending by rescinding nearly $2.8 billion that would have been spent on local projects through earmarks that both parties have banned. Another $1.2 billion is saved by eliminating eight programs both Republicans and Democrats have agreed to cut in the past.

Those cuts include $75 million in election grants; $29 million to help rural communities develop broadband networks; $30 million in unneeded Smithsonian renovation money; $250 million for a reading program;, and $650 million in added highway spending.
From the Hill, background on the increased contention between the two chambers.

The Trouble With Open Floor Procedures

For 2302, a reminder of our discussion of floor procedures and the power of the Speaker. Jonathan Bernstein argues that Boehner's otherwise laudatory allowance of unlimited amendments on the floor of the House during the recent debate about spending on the 2011 budget has led to an inevitable budget showdown:

When Republicans brought the funding bill to the House floor, Boehner allowed for the introduction of hundreds of amendments, instead of following the usual procedure of having the House Rules Committee screen out most amendments. For Republican members of the House, it was a great opportunity to fulfill campaign promises by authoring amendments, many of which were approved, on all sorts of policy issues. Indeed, instead of just raising or lowering spending levels for federal agencies, these amendments prohibit the government from using any funds to carry out laws that House Republicans don’t like. So, for example, the funding bill now tells the EPA that it cannot regulate greenhouse gases; it tells the FCC that it may not implement net- neutrality regulations; it cuts funding from Planned Parenthood; and, perhaps most critically, it blocks money needed to carry out health care reform.

This means that, instead of sending the Senate a bill carefully tailored for a major budget fight, the House has delivered one containing a hodgepodge of policy fights. Consequently, it will be much harder to find common ground before time runs out to prevent a shutdown.

So the budget bill is not only about the budget. Due to the amendments that have been added to it, it is also about numerous other policy issues as well. Policy conflicts, Bernstein suggests, will lead to an inevitable stalemate and shut down. 

Stalemate on Continuing Resolutions in Congress

Even while the 2012 budget has been introduced and debated, issues associated with the 2011 budget still rage. Recall that money cannot be actually spent - drawn from the treasury, despite the fact that it has been budgetted, unless it is appropriated. As we know in 2302, Appropriations Committees exist in the House and Senate to oversee the process. But the process also allows for opponents of spending an additional chance to alter - after the fact - the budget. Impasses over spending are common, so appropriations bills are often not passed by the time the fiscal year starts. Continuing resolutions are then required to fund governmental operations. But these need to be voted on repeatedy, meaning opponents of pending always have a chance to block spending they are opposed to.

Republicans want to trim back spending on last year's budget, but have differed over how much. The Tea Party members want far more cuts than their leadership originally wanted, but appear to have won the day. Republicans now want to slice $100 billion from the 2011 budget, but they only control the House, not the Senate.  Senate Democrats are unlikely to vote for the budget cuts the House Republicans support. If this dispute is not resolved, and a continuing resolution is not passed when the current one expires - March 4 -- funding for government ceases and it all shuts down.

Related stories:

- Boehner says spending must be cut, but Senate Democrats won’t budge.
- Hill braces for shutdown showdown.
- House's cuts will test Senate.

From CQ Roll Call regarding the current state of the bill: THE HOUSE: Convened at 9 and appears on course for final passage of the $1 trillion, seven-month spending package sometime tonight. Talk of a Saturday session has been fading, even though all sides agreed late last night to allow up to 23 more hours of debate on as many as 129 more amendments.

Three amendments are getting the lion’s share of attention. One would cut all federal family planning aid. Another would prohibit any spending to implement last year’s health care overhaul. The last would impose an additional $20 billion in cuts from current levels (on top of the $61 billion in the legislation), which the conservative Republican Study Committee says would accomplish its goal of bringing non-security spending down to 2008 levels.

House Tea Party Flexes its Muscle, Forces Republican Leadership to Cut More From the Budget.

From Politico:

Faced with a revolt on the right, House Republicans scrambled Wednesday to adjust their budget strategy and come up with tens of billions of dollars in additional savings — including a possible across-the-board cut — to appease tea party supporters.

The day began with the once-proud House Appropriations Committee previewing what it saw as an unprecedented package of more than $40 billion in reductions from current domestic and foreign aid funding. But even as the numbers were released, conservatives at a morning caucus demanded twice the reductions. And by late in the day, the committee’s cardinals were closeted away in the Capitol, fending off talk of across-the-board cuts but also admitting they will most likely need days more to come up with an alternative.

More than any single event in the new Congress, the standoff captured what’s become a rhetorical nightmare for GOP leaders — having pledged to cut $100 billion from spending this year but then single-mindedly targeting just one narrow segment of the budget covering domestic programs and foreign aid.

Contributions and Earmarks

From the Washington Post:

House Appropriations defense subcommittee member James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.) works hard at fundraising: Two to three times a week, he telephones contributors to ask for more. Yet, according to the account he supplied to the Office of Congressional Ethics last year, he is unaware of "who made donations" or how much they gave, and so that information plays no role in his earmarking -- the systematic granting of public funds for mostly private purposes.

Fellow subcommittee member Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) similarly presides over fundraisers arranged by his staff for defense firms and lobbyists every three months or so, according to his office's account. An aide in charge of Dicks's earmarks attends the fundraising events. But Dicks and the aide told investigators they were unaware of the substantial overlap between defense industry contributions to Dicks and his earmarks to contributors.

We'll be discussing elections in 2301 and the amount of time and energy members of Congress have to spend raising campaign funds. This story suggests that the contributors may be getting more than an open ear from recipients.

Al Green's Appropriations Request

For discussion this week, an item from Rep. Al Green's website, his appropriations requests. A useful example of constituent service.