News
As the Senate on Thursday began debating a massive stopgap measure to fund the government through fiscal 2007, Republicans criticized Democratic efforts to stop amendments.
With only a week before the government’s funding runs out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., employed a parliamentary maneuver known as “filling the amendment tree” to prevent other lawmakers from offering amendments to the $463.5 billion continuing resolution.
Reid also filed a motion for cloture on the measure (H J Res 20) that the House passed Jan. 31. The cloture vote is slated for Feb. 13.
The resolution would fund agencies covered by the nine annual spending bills that were not completed last year by the 109th Congress. The current stopgap spending bill (PL 109-383) is set to expire Feb. 15.
Reid left open the possibility that he might allow amendments, noting concerns about funding for military base closures.
In December, Democrats said they would complete the unfinished bills using a long-term continuing resolution. That way, they could wrap up the work quickly and have a clean slate for considering fiscal 2008 spending.
They have tried to shield themselves from criticism of the process by arguing that they are cleaning up what was left behind by a GOP-led Congress.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that when Senate Democrats left the GOP in a similar position in early 2003 — having lost their Senate majority in the previous election and having failed to complete 11 of 13 spending bills — Republicans allowed more than 100 amendments to the omnibus spending package (PL 108-7).
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called for a rules change to prohibit the majority leader from filling the tree, and said “Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault.”
The “tree” is a reference to diagrams used to illustrate the Senate amendment process. The majority leader has the power to be recognized first when it comes to offering amendments. So, if the leader wants to “fill the tree,” he can offer an amendment to fill each of the tree branches. For instance a first degree, a second degree and a perfecting amendment could be offered filling the three main branches. While those amendments are pending, no others can be considered.
Specter lamented that without an opportunity to amend the bill, Republicans were forced to choose between closing down the government or voting for the measure. “We are all rubber stamps — take it or leave it,” he said.
At a news conference, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Reid had repeatedly prevented Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (1995-2007), from bringing spending bills to the floor.
“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say we’re going to, in the background, block the appropriations bills from coming to the floor — which he did multiple times with Bill Frist, and you can confirm that with him — and then say you didn’t get your work done,” Coburn said.
Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, replied: “I am sure that he didn’t mean to say that, and that he is as disappointed as Sen. Reid is over the fact that he and his fellow Republicans left this country and the Congress with such a terrible fiscal mess.”
Coburn was one of several senators last year who, for a time, blocked action on the fiscal 2007 Military Construction-VA spending bill because they said they did not want it to become a vehicle for an earmark-laden omnibus.
Among the amendments that Republicans want to offer is one by Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee, to boost funding for base realignment and closure, or BRAC. The stopgap measure provides $2.5 billion — $3.1 billion less than President Bush requested for fiscal 2007 but $1 billion more than provided in fiscal 2006.
Hutchison has proposed an amendment to restore the BRAC funding and employ a 0.73-percent across-the-board cut to other spending, excluding defense, homeland security and veterans.
Hutchison and 25 colleagues wrote to Reid and McConnell on Feb. 7 requesting that they be allowed to offer an amendment to add $3.1 billion in BRAC funding. All of the signatories were Republicans except Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Democrats are expected to provide the additional spending for BRAC in a war emergency supplemental measure to be considered this spring.
But John Ensign, R-Nev., called that approach a “budget gimmick.”
“If you want to be considered the party of fiscal responsibility and transparency, this is not the way to come into a new Congress. If they want to increase spending by that much, be honest about it,” he said.
Republicans also want to offer amendments on funding for AIDS/HIV testing and the Crime Victims Fund.
Some Republicans challenged Democratic assertions that the measure is free of earmarks. “I think the claim. . . there are no earmarks in this is wholly false,” said Coburn.
The continuing resolution does not contain new earmarks and specifically notes that any earmarks in a committee report or manager’s statement accompanying a measure for fiscal 2006 “shall have no legal effect.” But <Coburn said earmarks lack the force of law anyway, so that represents no significant change.
But the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee defended Democrats on that point. “Based on any reasonable standard it is devoid of earmarks,” Thad Cochran of Mississippi said of the measure.
With only a week before the government’s funding runs out, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., employed a parliamentary maneuver known as “filling the amendment tree” to prevent other lawmakers from offering amendments to the $463.5 billion continuing resolution.
Reid also filed a motion for cloture on the measure (H J Res 20) that the House passed Jan. 31. The cloture vote is slated for Feb. 13.
The resolution would fund agencies covered by the nine annual spending bills that were not completed last year by the 109th Congress. The current stopgap spending bill (PL 109-383) is set to expire Feb. 15.
Reid left open the possibility that he might allow amendments, noting concerns about funding for military base closures.
In December, Democrats said they would complete the unfinished bills using a long-term continuing resolution. That way, they could wrap up the work quickly and have a clean slate for considering fiscal 2008 spending.
They have tried to shield themselves from criticism of the process by arguing that they are cleaning up what was left behind by a GOP-led Congress.
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said that when Senate Democrats left the GOP in a similar position in early 2003 — having lost their Senate majority in the previous election and having failed to complete 11 of 13 spending bills — Republicans allowed more than 100 amendments to the omnibus spending package (PL 108-7).
Arlen Specter, R-Pa., called for a rules change to prohibit the majority leader from filling the tree, and said “Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault.”
The “tree” is a reference to diagrams used to illustrate the Senate amendment process. The majority leader has the power to be recognized first when it comes to offering amendments. So, if the leader wants to “fill the tree,” he can offer an amendment to fill each of the tree branches. For instance a first degree, a second degree and a perfecting amendment could be offered filling the three main branches. While those amendments are pending, no others can be considered.
Specter lamented that without an opportunity to amend the bill, Republicans were forced to choose between closing down the government or voting for the measure. “We are all rubber stamps — take it or leave it,” he said.
At a news conference, Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said Reid had repeatedly prevented Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. (1995-2007), from bringing spending bills to the floor.
“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say we’re going to, in the background, block the appropriations bills from coming to the floor — which he did multiple times with Bill Frist, and you can confirm that with him — and then say you didn’t get your work done,” Coburn said.
Jim Manley, Reid’s spokesman, replied: “I am sure that he didn’t mean to say that, and that he is as disappointed as Sen. Reid is over the fact that he and his fellow Republicans left this country and the Congress with such a terrible fiscal mess.”
Coburn was one of several senators last year who, for a time, blocked action on the fiscal 2007 Military Construction-VA spending bill because they said they did not want it to become a vehicle for an earmark-laden omnibus.
Among the amendments that Republicans want to offer is one by Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Military Construction-VA Appropriations Subcommittee, to boost funding for base realignment and closure, or BRAC. The stopgap measure provides $2.5 billion — $3.1 billion less than President Bush requested for fiscal 2007 but $1 billion more than provided in fiscal 2006.
Hutchison has proposed an amendment to restore the BRAC funding and employ a 0.73-percent across-the-board cut to other spending, excluding defense, homeland security and veterans.
Hutchison and 25 colleagues wrote to Reid and McConnell on Feb. 7 requesting that they be allowed to offer an amendment to add $3.1 billion in BRAC funding. All of the signatories were Republicans except Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Democrats are expected to provide the additional spending for BRAC in a war emergency supplemental measure to be considered this spring.
But John Ensign, R-Nev., called that approach a “budget gimmick.”
“If you want to be considered the party of fiscal responsibility and transparency, this is not the way to come into a new Congress. If they want to increase spending by that much, be honest about it,” he said.
Republicans also want to offer amendments on funding for AIDS/HIV testing and the Crime Victims Fund.
Some Republicans challenged Democratic assertions that the measure is free of earmarks. “I think the claim. . . there are no earmarks in this is wholly false,” said Coburn.
The continuing resolution does not contain new earmarks and specifically notes that any earmarks in a committee report or manager’s statement accompanying a measure for fiscal 2006 “shall have no legal effect.” But <Coburn said earmarks lack the force of law anyway, so that represents no significant change.
But the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee defended Democrats on that point. “Based on any reasonable standard it is devoid of earmarks,” Thad Cochran of Mississippi said of the measure.
