GovernmentExecutive.com

Moderate Republicans in both chambers asserted themselves Thursday, challenging President Bush's proposed stringent limits on discretionary spending for domestic programs with plans that exceed the spending cap.

The Senate narrowly approved a $2.8 trillion fiscal 2007 budget resolution, 51-49, after voting to essentially add more than $16 billion to the budget's proposed $873 billion discretionary spending cap. Of that total, $7 billion would come from "advance" appropriations for education, health care and worker safety.

The amendment, backed by 28 Republicans and sponsored by Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and ranking member Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, was adopted on a 73-27 vote.

"The Republican party is now basically moderate," Specter said. He voted for the budget resolution after assurances GOP leaders would honor his demands for funding increases later in the year during the fiscal 2007 appropriations process.

Across the Capitol, 23 moderate Republicans wrote to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., threatening to oppose the still-developing budget resolution and later appropriations bills unless GOP leaders agree to a 2 percent increase, or about $8 billion, for non-security discretionary spending.

"It is imperative that we maintain critical federal investments in education, health care, housing, veterans' services and key urban support programs, among other areas," states the letter spearheaded by Reps. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., and Fred Upton, R-Mich. "Failure to make such a commitment in the overall budget amount could make it difficult for members to support individual appropriations bills as they move forward."

The letter came as the House overwhelmingly approved a $91.9 billion fiscal 2006 emergency supplemental bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and hurricane relief, over the vocal objections of conservatives.

Two costly amendments proposed by Democrats almost squeaked through with widespread GOP support, each failing by only two votes. Republican leaders beat back an amendment by Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., to add $1.9 billion for housing grants in his hurricane-battered state, 212-210, while an amendment by Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., to add $1.2 billion for port security failed, 210-208.

In the other chamber, Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., won a 51-49 victory to add $3.3 billion for low-income energy subsidies, while Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., won voice-vote approval to add $1.2 billion by striking Bush's proposed airline ticket fee increases.

Those amendments and others had the combined effect of adding $9.5 billion to the $873 billion spending cap. Combined with the Specter-Harkin amendment, which does not technically add to the budget cap but nonetheless would provide real funding, roughly an additional $16.5 billion would be provided under the fiscal 2007 budget resolution, said Senate Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

Even that was not enough for moderate GOP Sens. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, who were opposed to provisions opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. Republican leaders were forced to lean on Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, the lone Democrat to vote "aye."

Her support was contingent on a Gulf Coast relief package of as much as $10 billion, to be financed by any additional revenues above CBO estimates generated from Arctic and coastal drilling, as well as broadcast spectrum sales.

"These kind of votes are never easy but sometimes they are necessary," Landrieu told reporters. "I most certainly don't relish this position [but] I came here to represent the state of Louisiana, period."

Darren Goode contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

• Title is wrong for article. Bush blew by the limits -- not the moderates. Bush’s priorities are wrong. Why continue to pay for the invasion of Iraq? A move was not based on any logical or truthful information. The United States never struck first and now we cannot say that we will not strike first. Bush has made this position untrue for the United States and we will not be able to live it down for centuries. This guy has cost us a great deal and produced nothing of value at home. He increased debt to such a level that most tax revenue has to be used to pay the interest. Taxes will have to increase just to pay interest. Congress has to stop funding Iraq - rebuilding or war support. Remove troops from foreign bases immediately and reduce costs by not paying the countries for our leaving. Do not rebuild New Orleans in locations subject to flooding if the levees break -- the Army Corps has rebuilt them to the same level they were before Katrina! Stop pension guarantee fund from paying on pensions for companies that go bankrupt! Get rid of the pension guarantee fund! Reduce deposit insurance to $50,000 per person not account and do not insure municipal deposits! Stop credit unions -- they should not be allowed to compete with banks because we will pay the price when banks fail because of unfair competition from credit unions! Make Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stop purchasing refinance mortgages. Lower the mortgage limit on Fannie and Freddie to 80 percent of the loan limit as currently determined -- you allowed them to destroy the S&L industry and that cost us about $500 billion that no one will ever discuss and which taught Congress nothing. It is time for Americans to become responsible more for themselves and depend less on the government! Get rid of the state functions that the federal government has taken over! There should be no Department of Education at the federal level. There should be no Agriculture Department at the federal level -- those independent farmers get the greatest federal subsidies of anyone. There should be no Department of Energy! There should be no Housing and Urban Development Department. There are many ways to reduce the debt and Congress should start now and not wait for the president to lead them because he is incapable of leading them in the proper direction! Taxpayer Posted March 22, 2006 8:02 AM
• It's just so disturbing to have the Congress raising that debt ceiling when the government is so wasteful. This isn't just a debt that we are passing down to the next generations. It affect us. It just shows how well insulated our congressional representatives are from the damage this causes. What difference does runaway inflation make to their lives? They can afford meat even if it is ten dollar a pound for hamburger. They can afford to live almost anywhere. In the mean time, those who have modest incomes are forced to choose between eating or having a place to live. Even the middle class will eventually have to make sacrifices if the wasteful spending isn't stopped. Everybody needs to open their eyes and realize that somebody has to pay regardless of how high the debt ceiling is raised. Robert M. Posted March 20, 2006 1:09 PM
• Amen to Taxpayer. I'm what you might call a tax and spend liberal. I think the fiscal conservatives and we liberals can agree -- tax and spend doesn't mean borrow and spend and spend and spend and than borrow some more. It has been a shock over these last few years to watch the continued call for tax cuts in the face of the greatest spending spree this national has ever seen. It is time to take Uncle Sam's credit card away and cut it up and then tell our good Uncle to get up, find a job and pay down that debt. There are other ways for this country to raise revenue -- how about stopping the give away of our natural resources to private companies for pennies on the dollar? How about fee-for-service for companies who are reaping millions of dollars worth of benefits for services by the good Uncle? How about shedding some of the federal programs back to the States -- e.g. let the States figure out how not to leave the kids behind in Education, not an Uncle who can't even balance his checkbook. And if worst comes to worst -- there are always "taxes." Americans need to come to grips with the fact that we are broke and if we want the same level of service, we have to pay for it. There is no free lunch! HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted March 21, 2006 8:37 AM