Government Executive - Authors - Bill Ghent

Add-ons to war spending bill hold up negotiations

Bill Ghent — Wed, 09 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0400

Appropriations sources in both chambers were hopeful Wednesday they could still convene the conference, although it could slip until Thursday morning. But appropriators remain committed to passing the bill before leaving for a two-week recess at the end of the week.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, summed up the feeling in the House saying, "Everything in our bill is clean-and the conference should be clean too."

While the House and Senate seem to be ironing out the major components of the bill, namely overall defense numbers, the Senate's inclusion of various projects and other items unrelated to the war in Iraq or homeland security has caused friction between the two Appropriations committees.

House appropriators so far have balked at the Senate add-ons, which Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has insisted must be included in the conference report in order for the legislation to pass the Senate by the end of the week.

Responding to questions about the dispute Tuesday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said he remained optimistic the differences could be worked out, even if most of the heavy lifting on the tangential items has to be done in conference.

"If you don't have a conference, it will never get started," said Young. "We will have a conference."

Among Senate add-ons in dispute are language inserted by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., directing that catfish farmers be eligible to receive disaster relief aid enacted in the recent 2003 omnibus bill. Another provision by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., deals with organic food labeling. And a $98 million earmark for agriculture research labs in Ames, Iowa, was inserted by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Other outstanding issues include: $117 million for satellite construction directed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; $3.3 million for the Waterbury Dam in Vermont; $50 million to leverage $1 billion in commercial loads to private shipbuilding firms; and even $500,000 to law enforcement costs related to the recent Station Night Club fire in Providence, Rhode Island.

In addition to the Senate add-ons, the major issues to be worked out in conference include the details of an airline assistance package, how much authority should be granted the Pentagon and the State Department over Iraqi reconstruction funds, and the amount of flexibility granted to the administration to allocate Defense money to prosecute the war.

Overall, the two bills are close in overall dollar figures. The House bill totals $77.9 billion, while the Senate bill is approximately $78.9 billion.

]]>

House, Senate pass war supplemental spending bill

Lisa Caruso and Bill Ghent — Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Senators voted 93-0 to approve their version of the supplemental. The House vote was 414-12.

During Senate floor debate Thursday, the chamber added $105 million to the supplemental for grants to states to provide smallpox and other bioterrorism inoculation efforts. The amendment, offered by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., was agreed to by voice vote. Senators also accepted $155 million in new spending for veterans' care in an amendment by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla.

The Senate debated rival amendments by Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to increase funding for high-threat high-density urban areas. It adopted Specter's amendment on a 66-31 vote and rejected Schumer's by 51-46. Specter's amendment would add $200 million in aid and redirect another $300 million.

Unlike the House, the Senate avoided votes on two hot-button issues, after Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., withdrew his amendment to block Iraqi reconstruction funds from going to citizens or businesses based in France and Germany, and Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., withdrew his amendment to add language to the airline aid package dealing with labor issues raised when airlines combine.

The Senate defeated an effort by Sen. John Breaux, D-La., to increase counterterrorism and homeland security spending by $2.65 billion, tabling the amendment by a vote of 52-46. The regular attempt by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to strip several earmarks from the bill, was tabled by a 60-39 margin.

And Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., saw his push to protect Congress' power of the purse in allocating homeland security spending fail; it was tabled on a 51-46 vote.

Just prior to final passage, Stevens said he was formally withdrawing an amendment to increase the statutory federal debt limit.

The House debate dragged into the night as House members voted 315-110 to kill an amendment by Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., that would have stripped from the bill $1 billion in aid to Turkey.

White House officials stepped up lobbying efforts to retain the aid, which they said could help build strained relations with Turkey, even as Republicans complained about Turkey's lack of responsiveness to U.S. needs in the war against Iraq.

Meanwhile, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., after a colloquy on the House floor, decided to withdraw an amendment that would have reduced the $3.2 billion airline assistance package in the bill by $2 billion.

The House approved an amendment offered by Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., to prohibit companies based in countries that opposed the United States' Iraq war resolution before the U.N. Security Council-such as France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria-from obtaining federal contracts for reconstruction projects in Iraq.

There had been some concern Thursday night that the parliamentarian would rule the amendment out of order because it creates new responsibilities for federal procurement officers.

]]>

Debt limit increase unlikely; Treasury to tap TSP funds again

Bill Ghent — Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Although Senate leaders are still hoping to consider a debt limit increase by the end of next week, it appears likely there will be no resolution on the issue for several months unless both parties and both chambers can end a game of political chicken and craft a deal.

In a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. Friday, Treasury Secretary John Snow said he would be forced next week to withhold investing portions of the civil service retirement fund not needed to pay beneficiaries in order to stave off a fiscal crisis.

Twice last year, the Treasury Department suspended daily investments of billions of dollars of federal employees' retirement funds to avoid breaking the debt ceiling.

The suspension affected investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund and the Thrift Savings Plan's G Fund. Federal employees and retirees didn't see any changes in their pensions or TSP accounts due to the accounting maneuver, however. Treasury is required to keep track of the interest the funds would have earned had the investments taken place and repay the money after debt crises pass.

The Treasury Department has been asking for Congress to raise the $6.4 trillion statutory debt ceiling. But Snow's action on the civil service fund, coupled with an influx of cash the government would get after the April 15 tax deadline, means there is not likely be another debt limit crunch until June or July, sources said.

But that is not to say the Senate may not give it a try next week. Because of the reinstatement of the so-called Gephardt rule in the House, when the House passes the fiscal 2004 budget conference report, legislation raising the debt ceiling is automatically kicked over to the Senate. It is likely, then, that the Senate might take up that legislation, which would raise the debt ceiling by about $860 billion, possibly by the end of next week.

If approved, the legislation would be sent directly to the president. While that would satisfy House Republicans by sparing them an up-or-down vote on increasing the debt limit, House Democrats are already crying foul. The Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats this week blasted Republicans for trying to "slip through the largest debt limit increase in history" and called on the Senate to craft a smaller plan and force a conference on the legislation.

Asked about Democratic calculations Thursday, Senate Finance ranking member Max Baucus, D-Mont., said a debt ceiling number should be fair to both sides, implying that Democrats may not be willing to support an increase as large as $860 billion. Sources also confirmed that Republicans and Democrats are talking about a compromise.

Also a possibility, according to Senate Democratic sources, is an attempt to attach an amendment by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., that would extend pay-as-you-go rules and sequestration. If adopted, that amendment could prove troublesome down the road because it would effectively force both mandatory spending increases and tax increases to be paid for with corresponding offsets, complicating the ability to pass prescription drug legislation or even the president's tax cut.

But a Senate GOP source said that if Democrats are successful in attaching the amendment, then Republicans would probably hold the debt limit increase in conference until the Treasury Department runs out of tools to keep the government solvent. Republicans would then strip out the amendment and force a vote on a clean debt limit bill, the source said.

]]>

House spending panel takes up war supplemental

Bill Ghent — Tue, 01 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0500

The bill closely tracks President Bush's request in overall dollar terms, although the panel chose to grant the administration much less flexibility than it initially proposed and instead directed dollars to programs it felt were appropriate.

Tuesday afternoon, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., was also set to offer an amendment, drafted by GOP leaders, to provide nearly $3.2 billion in airline assistance. That money would be paid for outside the $74.7 billion total and would primarily go to reimburse airlines for security-related costs they have incurred in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The House supplemental would provide for nearly $62.4 billion for defense activities, about $59.7 billion of which would be to set up in a war-response fund. But instead of giving the Defense Department free rein over spending, the committee chose to grant only $25.4 billion for a general fund, which the administration could expend as necessary, provided Congress receives a seven-day prior notice.

The rest of the defense money was allocated based on estimates already provided by the Pentagon, including $12 billion for military personnel, $20.7 billion for operations and maintenance and $1.3 billion for procurement.

In addition, the bill provides $4.2 billion for homeland security-related items, including $3.5 billion specifically for the Homeland Security Department. First responders would receive about $2.2 billion, which is $200 million above the administration's request.

Of that amount, $700 million would be handed over to high-density, high-threat urban areas, while the rest would be allocated to states-although the committee said 80 percent of first-responder funding must be given to local and city officials as soon as possible.

The bill also provides $498 million for border and port security, $235 million for explosive baggage detection systems at airports, $400 million for FBI's counter-terror activities and $165 million for bioterrorism and public health activities. In addition, the supplemental would provide $8 billion for foreign assistance, about $200 million above the request.

Nearly $2.5 billion would go toward Iraqi relief and reconstruction, while another $2.34 billion would go toward bilateral economic assistance and $2.1 billion for foreign military assistance.

At the markup, Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., had mostly praise for the overall bill, although he said the legislation did not go far enough to "batten down the hatches" at home. But the panel defeated his amendment, 35-28, that would have boosted homeland security items by $2.5 billion. The panel also defeated by voice vote an amendment offered by Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., to slash the $1 billion in aid to Turkey provided under the bill.

]]>

Lawmakers ready to 'fast track' supplemental spending bill

Bill Ghent — Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

With the military campaign in Iraq into its second week, House and Senate appropriators are putting the fiscal 2003 wartime supplemental appropriations bill on a fast track.

Anticipating numerous amendments from Democrats on homeland security and perhaps other issues, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., intends to take the supplemental to the floor Wednesday. House leaders, meanwhile, were intending to have the supplemental on the floor by week's end, although that timetable could move up if Democrats give a green light to move the bill more quickly.

While appropriators are still ironing out details of the supplemental, particularly with regard to defense items, House Appropriations Committee sources said their version of the supplemental will "closely track" President Bush's $74.7 billion request. The bill is likely to include similar functions totals as the ones laid out in the request-such as $62 billion for defense or $3.5 billion for the Homeland Security Department-although appropriators are tweaking various aspects of the bill and directing money to programs they feel are appropriate, sources said.

For instance, appropriators have balked at going along with the administration's request for a $59.9 billion reserve for defense needs, and instead are likely to put some conditions on that, giving the administration some flexibility on how to spend the funds, but simultaneously requiring accountability and congressional notification.

Sources said the defense language would mirror an agreement made between the White House and Congress during the 1991 Desert Storm operation. The supplemental request is also likely to appropriate the full $2 billion for first responders, sources said. The House has yet to make a determination on the size of an airline assistance package requested by the nation's major carriers, although if leaders do decide to move forward on the package, the money will come "above and beyond" the $74.7 billion request, sources said. Senate Republican leaders have nearly reached agreement on tacking onto the supplemental a $2.8 billion airline package-which would include $2 billion of direct appropriations for security-related needs and another $800 million to extend war-risk insurance.

Democrats also are expected to offer a host of amendments on the floor, likely boosting funds for homeland security and other domestic-related needs, though how many and for how much has not yet been determined. "It may be a repeat of the budget," said a Senate GOP leadership aide, noting the number of amendments Democrats offered on homeland security, National Guard and Army Reserves funding and other issues during the week the fiscal 2004 budget resolution was on the floor. "Now you're dealing with real bullets, literally," said the aide. "I wouldn't be surprised to see them coming back."

]]>

Rumsfeld, Ridge defend supplemental request, flexibility

Bill Ghent — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Thursday reiterated the need for Congress to give the administration broad leeway in the $74.7 billion fiscal 2003 wartime supplemental appropriations bill it has requested.

At the same hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge tried to assure senators that his department was working with states and local communities to make sure that unspent federal anti-terrorism dollars are getting out to the people who need them. Appearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon has already exhausted all its discretionary funds for the first three quarters of fiscal 2003 and would likely spend all of its money by late spring or early summer, making the $62.6 billion in requested Defense Department funds that much more crucial. He also said that the money would not cover the entire cost of the war-only what will be needed through the rest of the fiscal year.

While appropriators have vowed to move the supplemental at an expedited pace-indeed, both the House and Senate Appropriations committees have scheduled markups for Tuesday, although Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, indicated Thursday his markup might be delayed-they have so far balked at going along with the administration's request to create a $59.9 billion general trust fund to be allotted by the administration as needs arise.

"This is a very serious thing we're being asked to do," said Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who lectured Rumsfeld on congressional prerogatives and the need to account for taxpayers' dollars. But Rumsfeld said if Congress does not give more discretion, the Pentagon and other agencies would be forced to borrow money from accounts to fill needs-a "terrible way to operate," Rumsfeld said. He also said it would jeopardize the ability to make deals with countries helping with the war.

But Byrd said Congress "can't afford to give this administration or any other administration a blank check." Later, Stevens left some room for a compromise. Rumsfeld pointed out that Congress appropriated a reserve fund in the fiscal 2002 supplemental immediately following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, and Stevens replied, "Yes, Mr. Secretary, and there will be one this time, too."

Meanwhile, Ridge tried to assuage senators annoyed by the fact that many states have yet to spend homeland security dollars appropriated by the federal government. Senate Minority Whip Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he keeps hearing that state and local officials are "desperate for money," but that a "typical government snafu" has kept the dollars from flowing to where they are needed. Ridge attributed the slowdown to the fact that many states have not yet come up with emergency response plans. He added that the president's Homeland Security Advisory Committee was working on a template that states can use to help them begin drawing down homeland dollars.

Ridge also acknowledged that the formula used to allocate funds-which critics say have hurt mayors' ability to get money to local first responders-needs to be rewritten, but that there was not time to do it before Congress plans to finish the supplemental, likely before the spring recess.

]]>

Bush demands quick action on war supplemental

Mark Wegner, John Stanton, David Morris, and Bill Ghent — Tue, 25 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

"The supplemental should not be viewed as an opportunity to add spending that is unrelated, unwise and unnecessary," said Bush, outlining his request during remarks at the Pentagon. "Every dollar we spend must serve the interests of our nation, and the interests of our nation in this supplemental is to win this war and to be able to keep the peace."

The White House request for $74.7 billion includes $62.6 billion for the Pentagon to move troops, maintain equipment and replenish the supply of smart bombs and cruise missiles. About $60 billion of that would go into a general war trust fund, of which "at least" $53.4 billion would to go military operations in Iraq, $3.7 billion would go to munitions replenishment, $1.7 billion would be for classified activities and $1.1 billion for equipment procurement and research and development.

The other $2.7 billion in specified money would go to countries supporting the war in Iraq and other anti-terrorism efforts, cover the cost of fuel, build military facilities in Guantanamo Bay, and even supplement anti-narcotics efforts in Colombia.

Bush also asked for $4.25 billion for increased domestic security, of which about $3.5 billion would go to the Homeland Security Department. About $2 billion would go directly to states, while $1.5 billion would be shared among federal departments to beef up border, airport and maritime security.

Another $500 million would be for the FBI's counter-terrorism efforts, with the final $250 million slated for a trust fund to address "immediate and emerging" terrorist threats.

The House Appropriations Committee will take testimony this week from Pentagon officials, Homeland Security Department officials and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage on the supplemental. The committee then will move early next week to a full markup, in anticipation of passing the House by the end of next week in order to meet Bush's April 11 deadline for completing action on the bill.

"I will move the president's supplemental request through the House as quickly as I can because I know the importance of this bill to the men and women of the military," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla. He added that he had assurances from the House leadership that the supplemental will have "priority consideration" on the floor, something echoed today by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is looking to hold a hearing with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge this week if possible and would probably mark up the package next week, according to a GOP appropriations source.

While both Young and Stevens have said they will try to meet Bush's goal of keeping extraneous provisions from being tacked onto the supplemental, it may not be easy. An aide to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Democrats would try to boost the $4.25 billion request for new homeland security spending to at least $8 billion or $10 billion-something many Republicans may go along with.

Senate Democrats also may push to include new funding for state and local security projects to protect the nation's water infrastructure from terrorist attacks, according to lobbyists and Senate sources. Although the total amount that may be sought is unclear, state and local officials have continued to lobby the White House and Congress for new funding since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Democrats also will be watching for administration or GOP attempts to use the supplemental to push through environmental exemptions for the Defense Department. Republican congressional leaders, as well as the White House, have made these exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act and federal marine mammal protections a priority, arguing the rules cripple the military's ability to properly train.

Although it is unclear whether the exemptions will be inserted in the supplemental package sent to Capitol Hill, Democrats at the very least expect GOP lawmakers to attempt to insert the provisions during the abbreviated committee consideration of the bill.

]]>

White House, lawmakers discuss supplemental request

April Fulton, David Morris, and Bill Ghent — Mon, 24 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Congressional leaders and appropriators headed to the White House Monday afternoon for a meeting with President Bush and White House staff about the contents of the administration's imminent fiscal 2003 supplemental spending request to pay for the military campaign in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer would not say how much the president will seek to pay for the war with Iraq and for homeland security. But he cautioned that the $80 billion figure reported in several news outlets was not accurate, while suggesting the amount would be closer to between $70 billion and $75 billion.

Sources said the bill will include $62 billion for the Defense Department for the war and terrorism-related expenses, and about $3.5 billion for domestic security programs. It also will include between $5 billion to $8 billion in humanitarian aid for Iraq, increased security for U.S. diplomats, and assistance to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Fleischer said the request will only cover military and homeland security concerns, but did not rule out the possibility of financial assistance for U.S. airlines being included.

Bush sidestepped offering a dollar figure last week, when the House and Senate considered his tax cut proposal. Fleischer said the White House needed to gauge the early stages of the fighting so the supplemental appropriations bill could be expressed "with the greatest precision." Both House Appropriations Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young, R-Fla., and Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have said they would like to complete work on the supplemental by April 11.

Meanwhile, Senate leaders are trying to whittle down the number of amendments left to be considered on the fiscal 2004 budget resolution. Under an agreement reached last week, Republicans and Democrats can offer just 40 amendments each-and must have filed the list of those amendments by 4 p.m. Monday. All votes are expected to be finished by Wednesday afternoon.

Senate Democrats said they are wary Republicans will try to reconsider an amendment that passed Friday that devoted $100 billion of the $726 billion growth package to cover the cost of the war in Iraq. "Their intention is to take it out," said Budget ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., emerging from a late-night meeting Friday. But with the supplemental request pending, Senate GOP leadership aides said Monday it was unlikely Republicans would try to restore the full $100 billion.

During Friday's session, the Senate passed 51-49 an amendment by Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to double Amtrak funding to $1.8 billion, although it would be offset with money from the $1.3 trillion overall tax cut, not the now-$626 billion growth package ordered under reconciliation.

The Senate also passed an amendment by Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo., that Senate Budget Committee GOP staff said would boost highway spending by about $63 billion over the next six years, adding about $10 billion to the budget for fiscal 2004. But the Senate defeated, 62-38, a much-touted moderates' amendment to reduce the tax package down to $350 billion.

]]>

As Hill awaits Iraq supplemental, Dems push homeland spending

Bill Ghent — Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

With less than 24 hours remaining before President Bush's deadline for war expires, the White House remained unwilling late Tuesday to place any estimate on the cost of a war with Iraq. Reacting to published reports that Congress may face a $90 billion supplemental budget request to pay for a war with Iraq, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer repeated the position that the cost of a war, if it comes, can only be estimated after hostilities have begun, based on the amount of resistance encountered and duration of combat. Fleischer also denied that the president had cited a $90 billion figure-one of the many estimates for the cost of the supplemental-during a Monday meeting with congressional leaders.

Stevens declined to speculate on the cost of the supplemental, but said he expects it to include money for conducting the war and possibly additional funds for homeland security efforts. Any money needed for post-war reconstruction likely would wait until a second supplemental request later this year.

Stevens told the GOP Conference Tuesday that it was imperative to move quickly on the supplemental when it is submitted and that it was his intention to get a conference report completed by the time Congress recesses in mid-April.

"A delay is the worst thing that could happen," Stevens said. "The military needs this money now."

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats today called on the administration to include as much as $7 billion in new homeland security spending in the supplemental and said they will offer amendments to the budget resolution to boost homeland security spending over 10 years by between $20 billion and $100 billion.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., said she sent a letter to the White House Tuesday asking that $7 billion for homeland security should be attached to the supplemental-$5 billion for first responders, $1 billion for a reserve fund that communities could use to help make up for funding shortfalls and another $1 billion for "high-risk" cities, like New York and Washington.

"These are wartime expenses, and they should be covered as such," Clinton said.

Clinton's New York counterpart, Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, also indicated that Democrats were working on a comprehensive homeland security amendment that they plan to offer to the fiscal 2004 budget resolution. He said exact details were still being worked out with Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Mike Zuckerman contributed to this report.

]]>

With Iraq war looming, Hill leaders head to White House

April Fulton and Bill Ghent — Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

A bipartisan group of congressional leaders met with President Bush Monday afternoon. They were expected to discuss not just Iraq but also how a war might affect the timing of congressional action on President Bush's domestic priorities.

The administration has assured Congress that it would send an emergency fiscal 2003 supplemental spending request to cover the cost of the war within days of the start of military action. That proposal could be offered as soon as this week, complicating efforts to pass an already contentious budget resolution.

The war effort "may put it off a little bit," Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said of the budget resolution. "I would not be surprised if people get up and talk about it."

Debate on the 2004 resolution began Monday afternoon in the Senate, and GOP leaders are insisting that they will continue to push for the administration's $726 billion in new tax cuts, despite opposition from Democrats and the concerns of moderate Republicans who say the tax cuts are more than twice as large as needed.

"The president's proposal for stimulating the economy is really what we need for spurring long term growth," said a Senate GOP leadership aide. The aide said leadership would continue to reach out to moderates through a series of meetings this week to convince them to support the full tax-cut package.

At the same time, Senate Republican and Democratic moderates are looking to amend the budget resolution to reduce the tax cuts to $350 billion. But a spokeswoman for Sen. John Breaux, D-La., one of the leaders of the effort, said it is unclear whether they have the votes to win. Key swing votes-including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, John McCain, R-Ariz., Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and others-have not committed to voting against the budget resolution should the total tax cut number be $726 billion. Breaux aides, who are drafting the $350 billion amendment, are "hounding them," the spokeswoman said. An aide to Collins said the senator would still vote for the $726 billion in a budget resolution, even though she has concerns about the tax package.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are looking to offer a series of amendments that would further their message about taking a "patriotic pause," a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said. "The business of Congress will have to continue," the spokesman said, and Republicans will have to explain their votes.

Likely Democratic amendments include delaying tax cuts and new spending-except for homeland security, defense and a one-year stimulus package-until the cost for a war with Iraq is known. They also plan amendments to boost assistance to states, increase spending on education and prescription drugs, and strike a provision calling for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In the House, leaders are currently trying to "grow votes" for the 2004 resolution, which is scheduled for floor action Thursday, a GOP leadership aide said. That timetable probably will push back action in the Ways and Means Committee on the tax cut proposals until next week, sources said.

Republican moderates and various committee chairmen have raised objections to the resolution's spending cuts, both in discretionary but particularly in mandatory programs. Under reconciliation, the resolution orders committees to come up with about $470 billion to mandatory programs, but lawmakers have said the resolution would force steep and politically unsustainable cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and government pension benefits.

As for reports that the resolution is undergoing drastic change to accommodate such concerns, a spokesman for the House Budget Committee said the primary focus right now remains on teaching legislators about the resolution. He said interests groups are drumming opposition based on inaccurate information, particularly about possible Medicare cuts.

]]>

White House planning to delay war spending request

April Fulton and Bill Ghent — Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

The Bush administration has assured congressional leaders that they would receive an emergency supplemental spending request to cover the cost of the war within days of the start of possible military action in Iraq, congressional aides said Friday.

However, it is still unclear when or if the action will begin and whether a supplemental request would complicate efforts by the Senate and the House to pass their fiscal 2004 budget resolutions, which are targeted for completion by the end of next week, aides said. Vice President Cheney met with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Thursday to discuss, among other things, the timing of a spending request on military action in Iraq.

It is not expected that such a request would come until after the House and Senate complete floor action on the budget resolution, a key aide said. However, having a supplemental that could total somewhere between $65 billion and $95 billion come up while the tax cuts in the budget resolution are being debated could threaten the Republicans' economic agenda. House leaders have also said they want the supplemental war request delayed as long as possible to provide breathing room between the tax cuts and war spending.

Plans to finish the budget resolution by Friday could be hampered by Democrats' plans for offering amendments to draw attention to their spending priorities, and moderate Democrats' and Republicans' plan to try to scale back the $726 billion tax cut. Democratic leaders have said all tax cuts should be put off until the costs of a potential war with Iraq are known.

"What reasonable meaning can a budget resolution have if we can't say within hundreds of billions of dollars what the budget will be?" Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., asked earlier this week. And four moderates-Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, George Voinovich, R-Ohio, John Breaux, D-La., and Finance ranking member Max Baucus, D-Mont.-sent a letter to Senate leaders Thursday night, warning that they would oppose any new tax cuts over $350 billion that are not offset.

"We continue to believe that no tax cuts should be passed in light of pressing needs at both the federal and state levels, looming deficits and the possible conflict in Iraq. We will continue to work with like-minded members of Congress in both Houses to oppose any tax cuts," said Chuck Loveless, legislative director of American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, on behalf of the Fair Taxes for All Coalition.

But a spokesman for Frist said that it does not make sense to wait. "We're under statutory deadlines on which we have to act on the budget. They have been soft deadlines, but deadlines nonetheless," he said.

The budget resolutions introduced by both House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, and Senate Budget Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., require that the tax cuts be completed by mid-April, which could also be affected by a war supplemental request, but Senate leaders are confident. "We'll be in a position to switch over," said a GOP leadership aide.

]]>

House budget chair calls for deep cuts in non-defense spending

Bill Ghent — Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Nussle's resolution differs substantially from President Bush's 2004 budget submission in several respects, calling for nearly an $11 billion cut below the president's discretionary total, as well as steep cuts in mandatory programs. And while the budget still makes room for a $726 billion economic stimulus/tax cut plan, the resolution would not accommodate the entire Bush tax cut proposal over 10 years.

"I don't like deficits. I don't want deficits, and I won't pretend that deficits don't matter," said Nussle. "We can't get back on track" without tough choices.

Altogether, Nussle's budget would reach a unified balance in fiscal 2010, although the deficit over the 10-year period would still total nearly $760 billion, or $3.327 trillion not counting Social Security surpluses.

As for discretionary spending, the resolution would set a 2004 level of $775.4 billion in budget authority, which is $9.6 billion higher than the 2003 enacted level, but about $11.2 billion below the president's $786.6 billion 2004 proposal as scored by the Congressional Budget Office.

Of the specific budget functions, defense is one of the few that would get an increase over 2003, moving from $392.1 billion to a bit more than $400 billion. International affairs also would receive about a $2.4 billion increase over last year, while education would see about a $2.3 billion increase. But other government services would see actual cuts below the 2003 levels, including natural resources and environment spending (about $2.2 billion) and health (about $1.4 billion).

Appropriators are not the only ones pained by the Nussle resolution. Breaking from budgets of recent years, it also would order under reconciliation nearly $470 billion in mandatory savings from various committees. The resolution does not specify where the committees should find such cuts, but it would force a reconciliation savings package to come together by July 18.

The Ways and Means Committee would be the biggest lifter, required to find about $262 billion in savings over 10 years. The Energy and Commerce panel would be forced to save about $110 billion, followed by Government Reform at $39.5 billion, Agriculture at $19.1 billion, Veterans' Affairs at $15.1 billion and Education and the Workforce at $9.7 billion.

In addition, the resolution orders a tax reconciliation package of about $725 billion, as the president requested, to be completed by April 11. The plan makes room for $1.403 trillion in tax cuts, which is below the $1.57 trillion tax cut plan proposed by the administration. GOP staff said the resolution fully accommodates the growth package and makes the 2001 tax cut permanent, but that lower-priority items would not be allowed.

Also, the resolution includes a reserve fund for a $400 billion Medicare prescription drug proposal, as well as reserve funds for a $9 billion Medicaid modernization plan and a $3.4 billion plan to reduce biomedical threats.

]]>

House leaders hope to restore balanced budget in 10 years

Bill Ghent — Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., exiting a meeting Monday with Republican members of his committee, was tightlipped about the contents of his resolution, saying it "remains to be seen" whether it indeed will bring the budget back into balance within the expected 10-year time frame of the resolution.

But a spokesman for House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, was more optimistic, saying that despite new Congressional Budget Office estimates Friday showing the president's budget and tax proposals would produce a 10-year deficit of $1.8 trillion-or $4.4 trillion not counting extra Social Security revenues-Nussle was planning on submitting a budget "that will show balance" within 10 years.

Details remained scant Monday on how budget writers plan to do that. But it would take some type of reduction in spending assumptions, perhaps in 2004 but definitely in future years, to accomplish that if Republicans, as expected, also make room for the president's $1.5 trillion tax cut within the 10-year timeframe.

"At this point we're looking at the whole budget, with the exception of Social Security and a few other key areas," such as unemployment benefits, to control spending over the length of the budget resolution, said the committee spokesman. "The numbers are in flux."

However, the aide said Nussle's resolution would emphasize "fairness" to all parties, meaning that if appropriators are forced to accept a cut in discretionary spending, so will those who control mandatory spending.

That would be a tall order, given cries for increased defense, education, health and homeland security spending on the discretionary side of the budget equation.

Meanwhile, on the mandatory side, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, and his allies have been lobbying for huge increases in highway funds, and any proposal designed to decrease the long-term costs of Medicare and Medicaid would be greeted with skepticism on Capitol Hill.

Also, the president last year signed a major farm bill that greatly increased agriculture spending, and any effort to reduce those assumptions would also be a hard pill to swallow.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Monday that the Senate likely would take up the resolution approved by Nickles committee beginning next week.

Asked whether he thought the Senate would approve a budget resolution that called for the entirety of the Bush tax plan, Frist said he was "hopeful" but that his "real objective [would be] to make sure this budget process works" after the breakdown of last year.

]]>

House chair targets mandatory spending in fiscal 2004 budget

Bill Ghent — Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Plotting a tricky political course for his fellow Republicans-and turning his back on parts of the Bush administration's budget-House Budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, Tuesday said he intends to press forward with a fiscal 2004 budget resolution that cuts discretionary and mandatory spending below the president's assumptions in order to achieve balance by the end of a 10-year window.

The resolution would not, however, deviate from the $1.6 trillion Bush tax cut plan, said Nussle, acknowledging that it would include a reconciliation instruction to pass a $726 billion economic growth package and still allow for making the 2001 tax cut permanent, although that would not be ordered under reconciliation.

But in a bold statement, Nussle said the president's budget proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office last week said would create a $1.8 trillion deficit over 10 years, contained too much spending and that something has to give if people are serious about balancing the budget.

"I can coast along with the president's plan that doesn't balance over 10 years, or I can do something about it," said Nussle, noting that many in the Republican Conference, including himself, feel the "tax cut would only be good if we show more spending restraint." Nussle remained mum on the specifics of the size and nature of such restraint, although presumably the resolution would call for spending cuts in fiscal 2004 and beyond.

Nussle said the only programs "off-limits" from the budget axe were Social Security, unemployment benefits, defense and homeland security spending-assumptions laid out by the president's budget. That means the budget will likely call for significantly less spending on highways, farm programs, aviation programs and nondefense programs, such as education and health, than many legislators would like.

It also means that the resolution may contain calls for Medicare and Medicaid reform-a Herculean task. On Medicare, Nussle griped that the White House is still pushing for its $400 billion prescription drug proposal even though Congress enacted a $54 billion Medicare fix in the recent fiscal 2003 omnibus appropriations legislation. That's a $54 billion spending increase in just a couple of months, noted Nussle, who said he has yet to hear from the administration about whether it will support something less than the $400 billion now that the added costs have to be built into the Medicare spending baseline.

"If you don't start making these small decisions now, the pain of making them later gets exponentially worse," said Nussle, who acknowledged that the "structure of Medicare is more important than a $400 billion add-on."

]]>

GOP leaders pull military tax cut bill from House floor

Mark Wegner and Bill Ghent — Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

After huddling with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier, R-Calif., and Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, decided to pull the bill and acknowledged so-called add-ons had endangered the bill's prospects for passage.

"We need to keep working," DeLay told CongressDaily.

Addressing Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on the floor, DeLay said he wanted to reschedule a vote as soon as possible. "Unfortunately, as the bill headed to the floor there were concerns raised by our members and your members," DeLay said.

The underlying bill would restore the tax-exempt status of death gratuity benefits and allow military families to take advantage of an existing tax provision that allows homeowners to exclude as much as $500,000 in capital gains from the sale of a principal residence.

A glum-faced Thomas declined to comment on problems with the bill, which his committee amended last week with many of the controversial provisions. "You'll have to ask the leadership," he said.

DeLay said the bill might be back on the floor calendar next week, but did not indicate whether Republicans would strip out the extraneous language.

Democrats said they fully supported the underlying bill, which cost $478 million over 10 years, but weakened GOP support for the bill by slamming the inclusion of unrelated provisions, including a break to manufacturers of tackle boxes and producers of a diesel-water fuel mix.

Rules ranking member Martin Frost, D-Texas, charged the bill would shortchange military reservists by capping travel expense reimbursements at $500. Rep. Charles Stenholm, D-Texas, called the bill fiscally irresponsible, adding, "You talk about hypocrisy and shamelessness at its worst."

Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., also said some GOP members objected to the late addition of a moratorium on corporations moving offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. "We're punishing businesses-because our tax system is so convoluted," Flake said.

Ways and Means member Jim McCrery, R-La., who won inclusion of a provision that would eliminate the surcharge on foreigners abroad placing bets on races at U.S. horse tracks, defended the tax breaks as "good provisions, sound policy and needed to be done." McCrery said tax writers were serious about seeing the provisions become law. "That was part of the equation. We needed a vehicle that would move this through the process."

One GOP aide said Republicans legislators were comfortable with the costs of the tax breaks because they were offset with revenue raisers, but said the bill was troubled by a perception problem. The aide predicted the underlying bill would return to the floor next week on the suspension calendar.

"If we pull it, you'll probably see it next week-on suspension," the aide said. "It won't be Christmas-except for the military."

]]>

Uncertain war costs hamper budget planning

Bill Ghent — Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

With lawmakers, aides and news accounts continuing to toss around the figure of $100 billion as a potential-although unofficial-cost estimate, GOP lawmakers and senior staff are increasingly angst-ridden about the political difficulties of passing a budget, a tax cut and a wartime supplemental in a timely fashion.

Indeed, many Republicans privately hope the administration is beginning to see the wisdom of holding off on the supplemental spending request, which many thought would be delivered this month, until later in the spring, when the 2004 budget debate is completed and the president's economic growth package, in whatever form, is passed.

"It's clear that the best way to do the supplemental is after the budget resolution and tax cut are done," said a House GOP leadership aide.

While the administration is staying mum on the size and timing of a war supplemental-or possibly even multiple supplementals-both Senate Budget Committee Chairman Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, have attempted to quell anxiety over the budget quagmire by saying a war supplemental would not radically change spending assumptions for 2004, nor drastically increase spending in future years.

Nickles said he would consider much of the war a one-time cost.

"War is a pretty exceptional thing, and it will be treated as [a one-time] emergency," said Nickles, who nevertheless acknowledged that he was trying to figure out what postwar activities might be recurring in order to work them into his budget baseline.

Meanwhile, Stevens attempted to deflect Democratic criticisms about the cost of the war, saying no one demanded to know the potential cost of previous military engagements, such as Bosnia and Kosovo, before they occurred.

"It's not happened before, so why the hell should we do it now?" asked Stevens. "It's really a ploy to embarrass the president."

A GOP appropriations source said that calculating the impact of the potential war on future spending is next to impossible right now because there are no "credible numbers" about what the future cost is going to be-either in 2004 or beyond.

"We don't know what the war cost is, or what the postwar cost is going to be, but we know it's not going to be five dollars and ninety-five cents," said a House GOP appropriations aide. "We're in a really foggy area."

But with April 15, the statutory deadline for completing a budget resolution, around the corner, budgeters feel they have no choice but to move on and hope they can make reasonable enough guesses about the impact a war could have on spending in future years, while taking care of immediate costs in supplemental legislation.

"We can't operate in a vacuum and say it's not going to happen, but we're seven days out of putting a budget on the table," said a House Budget Committee spokesman, referring to next week's planned markup of the 2004 resolution.

He said budgeters would simply have to move forward, and as things develop and costs are known, "work that into the system."

]]>

Senate panel names appropriations 'cardinals'

Bill Ghent — Tue, 04 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0500

leader of the newly created Homeland Security Subcommittee.

Cochran, who is the second-ranking Republican on the full committee, will assume the higher-profile post after vacating his chairmanship of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, which will now be headed by Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah.

Because many transportation agencies and a few White House functions were folded into the new Homeland Security Subcommittee, Senate Appropriations Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, like House Appropriations Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., decided to merge two previous subcommittees into a new Transportation, Treasury and General Government Subcommittee, which will be headed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. But doing so meant that Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., who previously headed the Treasury-General Government Subcommittee, was forced to take a lesser spot, as chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which Bennett used to head.

Meanwhile, the rest of the subcommittee cardinals are: Labor-HHS: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.; Military Construction: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas; VA-HUD: Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo.; Commerce-Justice-State: Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; Defense: Stevens; Foreign Operations: Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Interior: Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.; Energy and Water: Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.; and District of Columbia: Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

]]>

Senate appropriations panel reorganizes to accommodate Homeland Security

Bill Ghent — Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

The plan would be to keep the total number of subcommittees at 13, but create a new Homeland Security Subcommittee that would oversee the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard and a host of other legal and independent agencies that handle immigration and emergency-response efforts of the federal government.

Meanwhile, the other transportation agencies unrelated to homeland security would be merged with other White House entities in a new Transportation and Treasury Subcommittee.

Stevens reportedly was displeased earlier this year when House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., decided to announce his reorganization plan without first consulting with him. In the end, however, Stevens decided to largely adopt the House plan, mainly to avoid causing jurisdiction and intra-congressional disputes.

"We didn't want to have an internal fight," said a GOP committee aide.

But while the move might spare some House-Senate sniping, it could cause ripples among the 13 Senate Appropriations Subcommittee chairmen known as "cardinals."

Senators remained mum Tuesday on just who would be getting what under the new arrangement. However, the second-ranking Republican on the full committee, Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, currently chairs the agriculture subpanel. But the importance of the new homeland security subpanel-and the fact that it has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard-could make a jump an attractive option.

Cochran, who also is chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, may also want to branch out into other areas of expertise, given that he is in line to take the reins of the Appropriations Committee in two years because Stevens is term-limited.

Next in line on the full committee is Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who has previously raised the idea of leaving the Labor-HHS Subcommittee that he currently chairs. But a Specter spokesman said the senator has made no public comment about his intentions.

Also undecided are Democrats. A spokesman for Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Stevens has yet to brief Republicans on the reorganization and that any decisions about which Democratic senator-including Byrd-would take over as ranking member on the homeland security panel are premature.

A GOP committee aide said Stevens hopes to have the reorganization settled by the end of the week or by Monday.

]]>

Senate chairman sets aggressive budget schedule

Bill Ghent — Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

"This seven-week period may start slow, but it's not going to end slow," said Nickles in an interview with CongressDaily.

While that may be a workable schedule for the resolution, which both Nickles and House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa have vowed will be done by the April recess, reconciliation will be a much bigger task. Nickles declined to discuss reconciliation specifics, noting that the dollar amounts and the number of potential reconciliation instructions are still under discussion, although he said it was accurate to assume he would be "starting with the president's figures" on tax cuts.

Nickles said he may push for a new round of spending caps and other statutory tools to put teeth into the budget process and help curb mounting deficits, although he acknowledged that caps and other tools in the recent past have not always worked as well as designed. With modified pay-as-you-go rules set to expire April 15 in the Senate, Nickles said he would try to extend them, although he declined to say whether they should apply to both spending and tax breaks.

Proclaiming himself still a deficit hawk, Nickles said that as Budget chairman, he would look at the "whole budget," not just discretionary spending, for ways in which to curb government growth. "We're spending $2.2 trillion, we ought to look at all of it," said Nickles, saying there is a difference between "can we and should we" be willing to operate under budget scenarios that do not bring the budget back into balance.

In addition, Nickles said he would like to end the "overtly partisan" nature of the budget process and bring Democrats on board this year's resolution. "I'm willing to work with them if they're willing to give me the votes," said Nickles.

If that does not happen, however, Nickles will be forced to move a resolution with Republican votes. That could make for some interesting maneuvering, given the conservative nature of Republicans on the Budget Committee and the influence that moderates can wield in getting something done on the floor.

"I'm concerned about passing it through the committee, but I'm more concerned about passing it on the floor," Nickles said.

]]>

Byrd criticizes Bush over first responder funds

Bill Ghent — Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., fired back at the White House Tuesday after President Bush criticized Congress Monday for hamstringing $3.5 billion in "first responders" money by tying it to already existing grant programs.

In a letter to Bush, Byrd defended as "responsible" the decision to channel first responders money through existing state and local grant programs "rather than launch a new untested program." Instead, Byrd said it was the Bush administration that had failed to yield to calls by governors and others about the need for more homeland security money, vetoing some $2.5 billion in last summer's supplemental bill while using "strong-arm tactics" to defeat various amendments to the fiscal 2003 omnibus bill to boost homeland funding.

"The enemy is not Congress, Mr. President. The enemy is the terrorist who stands ready to exploit the nation's many security gaps," Byrd wrote.

Meanwhile, an analysis by the Senate Budget Committee shows that, given the passage of the recent fiscal 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, discretionary budget authority in fiscal 2003-approximately $763.2 billion-will be about 6.2 percent higher than fiscal 2002, with a 9.1 percent increase in defense activities but just a 3.4 percent increase in non-defense items.

Those percentages are based on a fiscal 2002 discretionary total of about $718.4 billion, which omits some $15.9 billion in one-time-only expenses appropriated in various post-Sept. 11 supplemental appropriations bills. The analysis also said the $397.4 billion omnibus, signed into law by President Bush last week, "appears to have met" the administration's spending limits-defined as a discretionary total of $385.9 billion specified by OMB Director Mitch Daniels in early February, plus another $10 billion in requested defense money, an agreement to spend $1.5 billion for election reform and a savings of $500 million from USDA's Export Enhancement Program.

In addition, the committee said some $4.3 billion in mandatory spending increases in the omnibus would cost a net $50.5 billion over the fiscal 2004-13 budget window, most of that the result of a $52.8 billion increase in additional Medicare payments to physicians.

]]>

Democrats strategize over fiscal 2004 budget blueprint

Mark Wegner and Bill Ghent — Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

Democrats are plotting their strategy to craft an alternative to the White House's fiscal 2004 budget, looking for a way to further their policy agenda while still claiming the political high ground on the need to balance the budget and lower the deficit.

Early meetings among Democratic staff and senior lawmakers have yet to produce a consensus on how to accommodate calls for increased spending and an expansive prescription-drug benefit under Medicare while maintaining fiscal discipline. But sources said most Democrats are eager to support a sound budget document since last year's failure to produce an alternative plan resulted in a yearlong political whipping by Republicans.

In recent discussions, sources said some Democrats suggested avoiding the parameters of an overall budget plan and instead challenging Republicans one issue at time. Such a "piecemeal approach" would let Democrats propose as much spending as they think is necessary without having to make trade-offs.

But senior lawmakers such as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Budget Committee ranking Democrat John Spratt of South Carolina questioned the suggestion.

Members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition said Democrats must be willing to make trade-offs to craft a cohesive message for next year's elections. "We won't get traction or credibility unless we put together a budget resolution," a Blue Dog source said. As Democrats work to craft an official party response, members of the coalition plan to craft their own alternative.

While many of group's 34 members routinely side with Republicans on budget and tax policy, this year, the group opposes the president's budget plan. It recently voted to formally oppose President Bush's $670 billion economic stimulus plan, saying that the administration's call for more tax cuts will not stimulate the economy but will increase deficits.

The economy needs an immediate boost, but "the administration's economic plan would all but ignore those problems and dig our economy and our budget further into a ditch," said Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah, co-chairman of the Blue Dog Budget Task Force.

While the Blue Dog budget plan is not yet written, it is expected to call for a new round of discretionary spending caps, as well as the re-enactment of various budget-enforcement tools, including the use of pay-as-you-go rules to curb tax cuts and mandatory spending increases.

The coalition also said the president's homeland security budget is inadequate to meet the needs of state and local governments. Despite their differences with the GOP, Rep. Charles Stenholm of Texas, a leader of the Blue Dogs, still hopes Republicans will embrace many Blue Dog ideals when crafting their budget resolution.

"But if the majority is going to move ahead with tax cuts [that are not paid for], that's going to be a major sticking point with the Blue Dogs," he said.

]]>

Dems, administration trade barbs on first responder funding

Bill Ghent — Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

With members of the International Association of Firefighters flanking them, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called on the Bush administration to a request in an upcoming fiscal 2003 supplemental spending bill for more money for first responders, border patrol, intelligence activities, and better security for nuclear plants, water and transportation facilities.

"The president insists we can afford to spend more than a trillion dollars for yet another round of tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the very wealthy," Daschle said. "But we can't afford to do anything more to protect Americans from terrorism."

Daschle and Pelosi chided the administration in a letter to the president for refusing to sign into law $2.5 billion in extra homeland funds both parties attached to last summer's supplemental bill and opposing Democratic attempts to add another $5 billion in homeland funds to the 2003 omnibus spending bill that passed the House and Senate Thursday night.

Pelosi said that while the omnibus appropriations bill would fund first responders at the president's requested level of $3.5 billion, only $1.2 billion is new money," while the rest is being pulled from existing state and local law enforcement and firefighting grants. That amounts to nearly two-thirds less than new funds promised by the administration in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to the House Appropriations Committee's Democratic staff.

In a separate speech at The George Washington University, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Congress should add $16 billion more for homeland security to Bush's fiscal 2004 budget, including $7.5 billion more for police, firefighters and other first responders.

Harold Schaitberger, general president of the IAFF, also said the 2004 budget request amounted to little more than a "reshuffling of the chairs on the deck." He also blasted the administration for cutting the request for grant money that goes to fire departments for training, equipment and safety programs by nearly a third, from $750 million to $500 million.

Schaitberger said too much of the first responder money is going to veterinarians, utility workers and others who are not on the front lines of national and local disasters. Specifically, Schaitberger requested $65 million to train firefighters for responding to weapons of mass destruction, another $3 billion annually to add 75,000 new firefighters across the country, and $100 million for protective clothing and breathing gear.

Meanwhile, at a briefing Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said that while he was pleased members of Congress finally approved his department's budget in the omnibus bill, he was frustrated that "they have placed some constraints on the distribution of dollars."

Ridge said only $1.3 billion of the total $3.5 billion allocated for state and local first responders could be used toward developing and implementing their local emergency response plans.

Ridge pointed to President Bush's FY04 budget request of $3.5 billion for first responders and said he hoped that budget would come without such strings and would be passed in a more timely fashion.

"I know they need more money," he said. "The president recognizes they need more money."

Ridge also announced that his department Wednesday will launch its "Ready Campaign," which features ads to tell the public what they need to do to prepare for a terrorist attack. Ridge said such measures were necessary in "the new reality."

]]>

Senate Dems fault Bush over homeland security funds

Bill Ghent — Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

With the nation under a heightened alert for possible terrorist attack this week, Democrats, including Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Robert Byrd of West Virginia, said the administration's response to homeland defense issues has so far been inadequate.

"This country is witnessing a massive farce," proclaimed Byrd. He said that while the administration is willing to spend the dollars necessary to wage a war with Iraq, it nevertheless "fails to protect the people at home in a war that means the most to us."

All together, Democrats said the omnibus bill cuts $4.5 billion in homeland security items from the 2003 spending bills written by the Senate Appropriations Committee last year. Those bills' totals were reduced over the past few weeks in order to stay within the president's spending limits.

As a result of those cuts, Democrats said the omnibus legislation eliminates $2.98 billion for first responders, which includes money for firefighting and police grants and for local emergency response centers. Another $170 million was cut from the Transportation Security Administration and another $46 million for port security, while the Immigration and Naturalization Service's border security budget was reduced by about $180 million, Democrats said.

"It takes more than duct tape to patch the gaps in homeland security," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., referencing the administration's much-publicized-and highly derided-emergency preparedness tips handed out earlier this week. Byrd, meanwhile, said the president continues to "show the back of his hand" to the American people and to Congress when it tries to beef up homeland funding, noting the administration's refusal to sign into law some $2.5 billion in emergency homeland dollars in last summer's supplemental.

Democrats said the administration should request the additional $4.5 billion in an upcoming fiscal 2003 supplemental bill that Congress is expected to receive and debate in March.

"The ink will not be dry on this [omnibus] appropriations bill, and we'll realize we need a supplemental for homeland security," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who said if there was not more money appropriated, there would be an "uprising" among local communities being asked to foot the bill for more security.

]]>

Deal on omnibus spending bill nears

Bill Ghent — Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

While not all of the details had been released as of Wednesday afternoon, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said he expects the omnibus to come to the House floor Thursday for final passage, with the Senate to follow Friday. "I don't see any obstacle to that now," said Young, exiting the meeting in the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

On the drought issue, Young said he expected the omnibus to include a $3.1 billion proposal that has been pending, in some form or another, for months on Capitol Hill. Details were still sketchy on the exact contents of the aid package, but sources said the money would not come out of a discretionary across-the-board cut and would instead be paid for with offsets from mandatory farm spending accounts and other agriculture programs.

A spokesman for the Senate Agriculture Committee said the deal would in "no way" affect programs that farmers rely upon annually. However, the deal is expected to address concerns that the original Senate proposal, drafted by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., would not go to the neediest, drought-stricken farmers. Any new proposal would be able to accommodate more producers by more specifically targeting who should be eligible, sources said.

Overall, the bill should still total close to $400 billion, and would include a discretionary across-the-board cut of between 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent, according to Young. Most of that cut would boost funds for education programs.

In addition, Young said appropriators had secured a deal on funding for Amtrak, which would total $1.05 billion plus an extension on the life of a $100 million loan. Sources said objections raised by the Senate over the inclusion of language that would give the Transportation secretary the ability to veto unprofitable train routes had been "massaged," with final language still being worked out.

Also, sources said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, backed down on controversial language that would have exempted federal forests in Alaska from a Clinton-era roadless designation rule.

]]>

Treasury says government will reach federal debt limit Feb. 20

Bill Ghent — Thu, 06 Feb 2003 00:00:00 -0500

The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the current $6.4 trillion debt limit would be reached on or around Feb. 20, but congressional leaders so far have not agreed how to proceed with a traditionally difficult vote for many lawmakers.

It is unlikely any decision will be reached until March at the earliest, as most lawmakers believe Treasury can use a host of gimmicks to keep the government solvent after the debt limit is reached. It is unclear how long those gimmicks will forestall the inevitable.

Also Wednesday, Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told reporters the committee probably will not move legislation to raise the statutory debt limit until March, despite administration urgings to act this month.

This year, House Republicans made the debt limit vote easier for lawmakers by reinstating the so-called Gephardt rule, which allows the vote on the budget resolution to automatically raise the statutory debt limit. Once the budget resolution is passed, the House clerk enrolls a second resolution raising the debt limit and it is sent to the Senate. The Senate can either approve it and send it to the president, or force a conference with the House by demanding a different statutory limit.

Democrats used the Treasury statement as another means to attack the administration's fiscal policies and a string of projected deficits into the foreseeable future.

"The Bush administration is proposing that we cut taxes, and then borrow to make up for the revenues lost," said House Budget ranking member John Spratt, D-S.C., in a statement.

Added the congressional Blue Dogs, "We will lay down on the tracks in opposition to the administration's request for another blank check to finance its course of deficit spending in perpetuity."

]]>