Bipartisanship sweeps through appropriations process

The spirit of bipartisanship that has swept through the Congress since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks--and enabled the speedy passage of legislation responding to them--also has extended to the fiscal 2002 appropriations process, and how Congress resolves what were shaping up to be messy policy fights on spending bills.

While members caution that legitimate differences of opinion will not disappear, they pointed to a greater desire on all sides to keep controversy to a minimum and to resolve disputes quickly--and quietly.

Indeed, one aide predicted the biggest difference would be in the visibility rather than the existence of the usual fights.

"On the surface, it'll be all happy, back-slapping patriotism," the aide said. "We're probably going to have the same fights. They'll just be hidden from view."

House Appropriations Committee ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., pointed out: "You can't work together by papering over real differences people have. Obviously there are greater pressure for us to get together, and that's good - but not if produces bad legislation."

The surface-level changes were on display in both chambers last week. In the House, the Appropriations Committee held an uncharacteristically calm markup of the FY02 District of Columbia spending bill, during which it approved an amendment allowing the District to use local funds to implement its law allowing health benefits for domestic partners. Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., chose not to offer his annual amendment blocking all funding for clinics that operate needle exchange programs.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., called the session "a pretty good indication that we really want to get these routine bills off the deck" so Congress is able to focus on legislation responding to the crisis. "There will still be some differences," he added, "but I think everyone feels the urgency to settle these differences quickly, rather than insisting it's 'my way or the highway.' "

Senators also chose speed over lengthy policy fights during last week's floor debate on the FY02 Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. Senate Treasury-Postal Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., called for quick passage of the bill, which included funding for the Treasury Department's counter-terrorism efforts--such as the Customs Service and other accounts.

Dorgan set an example by not offering his amendment to block funds to enforce the travel ban to Cuba. So did Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who opted not to push his amendment to block funding that would pay for health insurance coverage of abortion services for federal employees. Although the language both Dorgan and DeWine wanted to add to the bill is contained in the House-passed Treasury-Postal spending bill, both withheld their controversial amendments to facilitate quick passage of the bill.

The next test may come during floor debate on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill, which was quietly amended in committee to block President Bush's reinstatement of the so- called "Mexico City" policy restricting international family planning groups from engaging in abortion counseling or lobbying on abortion law.

Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who supported the amendment, said Friday, "We shouldn't have somebody's agenda, right-wing or left-wing, holding up" the foreign aid bill--which will carry funds to allies old and new crucial to the war on terrorism.

So too will the conference committee on the Transportation spending bill provide a test, as conferees search for a compromise on controversial language that would restrict the movement of Mexican trucks so they can move a bill now expected to be refocused on issues of airline safety.