GovernmentExecutive.com

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday he could live with some added emergency funds that Democrats want, as the majority considers a new omnibus spending bill that limits all other federal spending to President Bush's top-line of $933 billion.

Initially Democrats had planned a bill that split the difference between their budget and Bush's, for a total of $944 billion, but that drew a veto threat over the weekend because, after factoring in $7 billion more in emergency funds, the measure would be $18 billion above Bush's request.

Most of that funding has either been requested by Bush or backed solidly by Republicans, however, and Boehner said he would take a look at it.

"It all passes the straight-face test," he told reporters, although a spokesman later stressed that Boehner had not seen the legislation and that some of the items could prove objectionable.

His spokesman said Boehner could support items such as $3 billion for border security, $622 million for drought relief in the Southeast and $300 million for wildfire suppression, which his spokesman said were "true emergencies" that Boehner has supported. "Until he sees the final package, he will reserve judgment on the 'emergency spending' the Democrats decide to include in the bill," the spokesman said.

Other items that had been on the table include $2.4 billion for State Department and foreign aid requests, mostly submitted by the Bush administration, as well as $146 million to implement Bush's cybersecurity initiative; $400 million to cover a shortfall in the major nutrition program for poor women, children and infants; $250 million for low-income heating aid; $195 million to rebuild the collapsed I-35W bridge in Minneapolis; $100 million for security at next year's presidential conventions; and $57 million for health care for workers who helped clear the debris around the World Trade Center after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In his weekend veto threat, OMB Director Nussle did not specify which items he opposed. An OMB spokesman said Tuesday "it would be premature to hypothesize" about what is in the package until it is passed and sent to the president.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., said all members' earmarks would have to be eliminated to help get down to the $933 billion level. Boehner, who does not request earmarks, was not buying that plan.

"We've heard those threats from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee before," Boehner said. He was backed up at his news conference by several other members of the House GOP leadership, all of whom secured earmarks in fiscal 2008 spending bills, and he appeared uncomfortable with the line of questioning.

"I'm also not here to say all earmarks are bad," he said. "This is an idle threat thrown out by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I don't think it's sustainable on his part."

Obey's spokeswoman reiterated that it is not an idle threat, however, and it appears to have the blessing of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Reid Tuesday continued to express hope for a compromise, but he acknowledged the chances were dimming.

"The hopes do not appear as hopeful as I would like them [to be]," Reid said, adding that a continuing resolution lasting "a matter of days" would be necessary to keep the government running beyond the current CR's expiration Friday. Republicans still are trying to add emergency war funding to the package, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he would offer an amendment adding $70 billion in war spending when the bill comes over from the House.

COMMENTS

• Tom, you’re right. I should know better than trying to address so many issues in as many directions, all while having a 400 word limit. There were budgetary issues buried in there for several of the seemingly unrelated topics I addressed. My tendency for verbosity and reaction seems to have lost them. “The Democrats are in charge now, blame them. Or is it always the republicans fault?” I did go back and review all your comments the first time. If you think even the last comment blamed both parties; well, different folks hear different things. To be honest, I used to blame both parties for many issues. Recently, there has been too much on the side of the PP. As I pointed out, blaming a thread bare majority in office less than a year, for a fiscal debacle that has been in progress for the past 6 years, by an experienced majority in control for 13 years, seems myopic. If you want any honest chance of evaluating their performance, give them the same chance you gave the PP. Could we have another 12 years to work with? Yeah, I know, don’t bother answering that. As for “wiretapping”; sorry, I never mentioned that. I won’t get into wiretapping here since that is not the subject. I won’t mention the president who was convicted, forced to resign, and later pardoned for doing just that, illegal wire taps; even if it shows the importance of proper warrants. Being in automation myself, governmental data mining has me a bit worried because I know what is required and can happen. What I wrote about was the suspension of the “Writ of Habeas Corpus”; definitely not the same issue. The Writ of which I spoke used to ensure we all had legal representation and a public trial by our peers, because it required the government to produce before a judiciary all those it held in jail; those checks and balances. “habeas corpus” means “produce the body”. Paranoid I may be, but my current civil rights issues have nothing to do with that and everything to do with the Constitution of the United States of America. I still think all politicians should be required to have Constitutional Law 101. It’s funny how the PP wishes for less intrusive government and so quickly hands the house keys over to the politburo. Tip off Posted December 17, 2007 2:29 PM
• Talk about a veer off into space Tip! Weren't we talking about the budget? There you libs go again being all overly dramatic about wiretapping! If your talking to a terrorist overseas then you have a problem, the only problem I see you having Tip is that you are paranoid. Trust me, nobody is spying in on your life! Yeah, I can't wait until 2009 when Mitt takes office! Tom Posted December 14, 2007 2:49 PM
• Good responses! Tom, my declaration on the dictatorship is specifically due to my adamancy against the suspension of habeas corpus. EVERY American has the right to a trial by jury, the right to hear the charges against them, and face their accusers. Under the PATRIOT Act, all that has been suspended. An American can now be jailed indefinitely without charges or trial. I thought we fought and won that battle back in the 1700’s. As for the congressional effectiveness, I WILL quit making excuses after 20 Jan 2009. Until then congress must struggle under the crushing weight of a lame duck divorced from reality. So far, they’ve been doing what I want them to do: i.e. TRYING TO remove us from a civil war, tame the deficit lion, repair the relationship we share with our allies, restore our civil rights and the sanctity of our homes, and promote stem cell research. I have to give them credit for the attempts, despite that stone wall they keep running into. Dan, I didn’t understand “the democrats did every thing they could to be the public to bear”. Not complaining, just can’t figure out the meaning. ref: “boasting” … I admit to being in a reactionary mode to the PP (and will probably remain so until 2009), but I am not please with every utterance of the Demos. As you may find in other posts, I DO NOT agree with high speed legislation. First time I heard the "100 days" line, that it came from Newt Gingrich. Didn’t agree then, don’t agree now. “Haste make waste.” and they haven’t been in office for a full year yet. As for “Bush … attempted to work with congress in the beginning”, Okay… how long did that last? Where did that occur? When did he make what attempt, other than to throw words into the wind? I’ve NEVER heard nor read any compromise proposal. He merely states what he wants and if he doesn’t get it, he’ll veto it. That is ONLY working because of his lame duck status; and it WILL flavor the next election. I can only wonder if the taste will be sweet or bitter for the PP. Tip off Posted December 14, 2007 11:28 AM