The federal government is no longer in danger of shutting down. Today Congress approved a bill to fund operations through fiscal year 2011, which ends on September 30. In the House of Representatives, the bill passed by 260 votes to 167 (roll call). The bill needed bipartisan support, because only 179 House Republicans voted yes, including Iowa’s Tom Latham (IA-04). Steve King (IA-05) was among the 59 Republicans who voted against; that’s about one-fourth of the House GOP caucus. Leonard Boswell (IA-03) was among the 81 House Democrats who voted for the budget bill; Bruce Braley (IA-01) and Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted against it.
After the bill passed, the House voted for two “corrections” to the bill, which passed on nearly party-line votes (roll calls here and here). One of those resolutions would defund the 2010 health care reform measure, the Affordable Care Act. The other would eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Latham and King voted for both “corrections,” while Boswell, Loebsack and Braley voted against them.
The Senate quickly took up the spending bill. The House measure to defund health care reform went down first; all 47 Republican senators voted yes, but all 53 senators who caucus with Democrats voted no. Then senators rejected the measure to defund Planned Parenthood. On that resolution, 42 Republicans, including Iowa’s Chuck Grassley, voted yes, while a few GOP moderates and the whole Democratic caucus, including Tom Harkin, voted no. The Senate then voted 81 to 19 to pass the spending bill. Most of the no votes were Republicans. Both Grassley and Harkin voted for the compromise to fund the government through the current fiscal year.
After the jump I’ve posted statements from some members of the Iowa delegation. I will update those as more become available. I noticed that Leonard Boswell did not issue a statement on his vote today; he also didn’t send out a press release Friday night about voting for the stopgap one-week spending measure. King’s press release today glossed over his vote against the budget deal; instead, he emphasized the House vote on language to block funding for “Obamacare.”
There’s some confusion about how much federal spending will be cut in the current fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “while the agreement cuts almost $40 billion in budget authority, the near-term reduction in the federal deficit is only about $352 million.” Philip Rucker explained some of the accounting gimmicks in this Washington Post article. Many of the cuts will hurt, however.
Of the $38 billion in overall reductions in the budget that funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year, about $20 billion would come from domestic discretionary programs, while $17.8 billion would be cut from mandatory programs. […]
Although the pain would be felt across virtually the entire government – the deal includes a $1 billion across-the-board cut shared among all non-defense agencies – Republicans were able to focus the sharpest cuts on areas they have long targeted. The Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments, which represent about 28 percent of non-defense discretionary spending, face as much as a combined $19.8 billion, or 52 percent, of the total reductions in the plan.
In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency, long a target of conservatives, will see a $1.6 billion cut, representing a 16 percent decrease from 2010 levels. At the Department of the Interior, affected agencies include the Fish and Wildlife Services ($141 million cut from last year), the National Park Service ($127 million cut from last year) and “clean and drinking water state revolving funds” ($997 million cut from last year).
Democrats were able to beat back the most severe cuts originally proposed by House Republicans and protect funding for some cherished programs, such as Head Start, AmeriCorps and the implementation of the new health-care and food safety laws.
This pdf file lists the program cuts, grouped by department. There are basically no Defense Department cuts, although spending has been reduced on military construction and a few veterans’ programs. In other areas of domestic spending, there are too many ill-advised cuts to list in this post. Some terms in this deal are merely short-sighted: reducing spending on various literacy and conservation programs, energy efficiency and renewable energy, and a big cut to high-speed rail projects. Other provisions are immoral, like slashing spending for community health care centers and the Low-Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program’s contingency fund. It depresses me that a Democratic president and Senate majority leader agreed to make the largest USDA spending reduction apply to the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program.
The bill also contains provisions that have nothing to do with federal expenditures. For instance, it removes gray wolves from the endangered species list in Montana so that farmers and ranchers can shoot them.
At the end of this post I’ve added reaction from the Iowa Congressional delegation to President Barack Obama’s April 13 speech on bringing down the national debt. I didn’t watch the speech, but I read through the full text, as prepared. It contained some nice words for liberals and some Republican-bashing. The trouble is, based on the president’s handling of budget negotiations in the past few months, I believe Obama will end up agreeing to almost all the spending and entitlement cuts Republicans want. Despite his promises yesterday, I very much doubt he will block a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for all income levels.
Statement from Senator Tom Harkin, April 14:
“This bill makes some painful cuts. But it could have been a lot worse, especially when you compare it to the alternative from the tea party extremists in the House, which would have killed far more jobs and concentrated its funding cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans. This bill protects community services for those most in need while providing funding for education, medical research, and other programs that are critical to our economic future.
“Now that this debate is over, Congress can refocus on the budget for the next fiscal year and the long term. It remains my hope that the next proposal will include spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while making room for critical investments in education, job training, infrastructure, and research – things that are essential for jobs now and for economic expansion and job creation in the years ahead.”
Statement from Bruce Braley, April 14:
“This job-killing spending bill is bad for Iowa, period. It kills jobs and threatens programs that are crucial to Iowa’s economic growth. While I support some of the cuts in this legislation, and have previously voted for hundreds of billions in spending cuts, I have serious concerns with the increase in funding for unexplained military operations, while simultaneously cutting job-training programs. American taxpayers should not be forced to sacrifice important programs here at home while covering the bill for a third undefined, military conflict overseas.”
Statement from Dave Loebsack, April 14:
“There is no doubt that putting our nation back on a fiscally responsible path demands serious, bipartisan work. I do believe that cutting spending is one part of the solution and I have already supported over $11 billion in difficult but necessary spending cuts from the FY 2011 budget. But, we must promote an economy that works for Iowa families, moves our economic recovery forward, and ensures an adequate safety net is in place for our most vulnerable. Unfortunately the bill considered today did not meet those standards.
“I support many of the measures included in the bill, including funding for equipment for the National Guard and funding for Head Start. But, I cannot support cutting programs that are critical to Iowans in the Second District.
“The bill that passed today would make significant cuts to education and job training, which are critical to Iowa families’ ability to prepare for and pursue good-paying jobs. It would also cut essential improvements to our nation’s infrastructure that residents and businesses rely on and that are critical to economic development, including transit, highway funding and passenger rail.
“By eliminating access to year-round Pell grants and cutting funding for job training programs, this bill would make it harder for deserving students to afford the quality education Iowa colleges and universities provide and for Iowa workers to receive the education and training they need to compete in the 21st century.
“I have worked with many local Police Chiefs and Sheriffs in Southeast Iowa to help them get the equipment and hiring resources they need, and I very much oppose cuts to the grant programs that help them keep our communities safe.
“Communities across Iowa are already struggling as a result of the economic downturn, and I have seen first-hand the benefit that Community Development Block Grants have had, especially for those areas ravaged by the Floods of 2008. This funding is critical for rehabilitation and development projects across Iowa and numerous cities have expressed strong concerns about further cuts to these programs.
“There is no question that getting our fiscal house in order is going to require tough choices and shared sacrifice. The time is long past due for Congress to come together to make thoughtful decisions that do not set back our economic recovery or put our children at a competitive disadvantage, but instead pave the way for ongoing economic growth and a strong future for our children.”
Statement from Steve King, April 14:
House Passes King’s Language to Defund ObamaCare
Washington, DC – Congressman Steve King (R-IA) released the following statement today after the House of Representatives passed language he introduced to block the continued funding of ObamaCare. King’s language blocks any funds contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on the implementation of ObamaCare, and it shuts off $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations for the law’s implementation that were included in the ObamaCare legislation itself.
“The House has now gone on record in support of my efforts to eliminate $105.5 billion in automatic appropriations built into ObamaCare,” said King. “The funding prohibition passed by the House today would not only block funding contained within the FY 2011 continuing resolution from being spent on ObamaCare, but it would also shut off $105.5 billion in automatic funding for its implementation that was contained in the law itself.
As I have long argued, blocking ObamaCare’s automatic funding is necessary to prevent the Obama administration from putting the pieces of this unconstitutional law into place. It is important that the majority of Americans who support repealing and defunding ObamaCare know where their Member of Congress stands, and today’s vote should make that clear.”
As background, on February 14, the Washington Times published an op-ed by Congressman King in which he called for the inclusion of language in the continuing resolution to block all funding for ObamaCare. With today’s vote, the House has gone on record in support of King’s initiative to defund ObamaCare.
The vote on King’s language took place as a result of the compromise that was struck last week by Speaker Boehner, Senator Reid and President Obama over legislation to fund the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, FY 2011. The agreement provided for an up or down vote on King’s language as an “enrollment correction” to the FY 2011 continuing resolution that the House passed earlier in the day.
Statement from Steve King, April 9:
Washington D.C. – Congressman Steve King (R-IA) issued the following statement regarding the deal that was reached to fund the operations of the federal government through the remainder of the current federal fiscal year, Fiscal Year 2011.
“There is no question that the cuts offered in the forthcoming long-term CR are needed and are long overdue. We must get government spending under control and rein in our skyrocketing deficit. But, while $39 billion in cuts is better than the status quo, it’s a long way from where we need to be,” said King.
“Today the American people were given a $39 billion cut in federal spending in exchange for continued funding for ObamaCare. For months I have said that the CR would be the key leverage point in the effort to stop the implementation of ObamaCare. I am disappointed that we have surrendered this leverage without taking a stand to shut off the funding for this unconstitutional law. We have now ceded a significant amount of ground on this issue, and I fear that we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to regain it any time soon.”
“More than $105 billion in automatic funding for ObamaCare is already on the books, and over $23 billion of this total is in the pipeline to be spent. Every day ObamaCare’s roots reach deeper and deeper. In November, the American people charged us with stopping ObamaCare in its tracks, and today we made it much harder to do so.”
REACTION TO OBAMA’S BUDGET SPEECH
Statement from Chuck Grassley, April 13:
“From World War II through 2009, every dollar of new federal tax revenue resulted in $1.17 in new spending. Tax reductions in 2001 and 2003 resulted in more revenue to the federal Treasury. The expanding economy spurred by this tax relief helped to reduce the annual budget deficit from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $160.7 billion in 2007. Even the most sincere argument that raising taxes will reduce the deficit and debt doesn’t have history to back it up. Outside of Washington, it’s obvious that the problem isn’t that people are under-taxed, but that Washington over spends. They said so loud and clear in the last election. Government spending increased by 22 percent during the last two years. If we follow the budget proposed this year by President Obama, we’ll add another $13 trillion to our national debt over the next decade. This debt gets in the way of the economic activity that creates jobs, and it’s a terrible burden to leave future generations. Washington needs to get behind policies that clamp down on spending and grow the economy. Increased economic activity increases revenue to the federal Treasury, enabling deficit and debt reduction. The answer is not defending ways to grow the government.”
Statement from Steve King, April 13:
“It should be clear that President Obama doesn’t view the nation’s debt crisis as a problem to be solved, but as a tool to be used to advance his own reelection hopes,” said King. “In one speech, the President managed to hit all the notes that his demoralized liberal base wanted to hear: he played the class warfare card, he endorsed cutting defense spending, he demagogued Paul Ryan’s ‘Path to Prosperity,’ he touted the unconstitutional ObamaCare law, and he even blamed Bush for the nation’s current debt problems. While the speech may excite some on the far-left, it should be viewed with disappointment by Americans who were hoping that the President would put politics aside to work on behalf of cutting spending and lowering the nation’s debt.”
Statement from Tom Latham, April 13:
“I’m glad President Obama has joined the debate on how we can repair our country’s fiscal standing. We simply cannot continue to spend money we don’t have, and it will take a truly bipartisan effort to cut spending, reduce the debt and improve the environment for job creation. But raising taxes on anyone while the economy is in such a fragile condition will put us in an even deeper hole. Congress must realize that the government doesn’t have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem.
“I am fully committed to working with the White House and any of my colleagues in Congress – regardless of party affiliation – who are willing to boldly stand up and address our country’s fiscal crisis and do the right thing for American families, farms and main streets.”
Reaction from Iowa Democrats in Congress:
TOM HARKIN, Iowa’s Democratic U.S. senator:
“One thing is clear: our country cannot continue down the economic path we are on. We must reduce our deficit. But that is not a call for Congress to pass budget proposals that are wholly unequal, forcing cuts upon the most vulnerable Americans while at the same time, continuing to given tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and special interests. That is why it was so refreshing to hear the President talk about the need for balance and shared fiscal responsibility in the framework unveiled today. This framework combines spending cuts and necessary revenue increases, while still making investments that will expand our economy and will create jobs in the years ahead. I am especially encouraged that it builds on the down payment made to reduce health care spending and the deficit under the Affordable Care Act, and it rightly rejects the Ryan plan to dismantle Medicare and Medicaid. In the coming days, my staff and I will fully examine this and other proposals. While I may not agree with every detail, I do agree that we need to make tough choices that move our country forward. This framework is on the right path.”
DAVE LOEBSACK, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa’s 2nd District:
“Over the last few weeks we have witnessed political games at their worst. This kind of brinksmanship and grandstanding is doing nothing to help Iowa families and businesses who are continuing to struggle and are worried about their children’s future. While I may not agree with every proposal put forward, I strongly believe we must move forward. The days when our nation could afford Washington’s political posturing are long since over. It’s time to get to work. That is why I was disappointed last year when Republicans walked away from real accountability so they could preserve their strategy of privatizing Medicare. We need to get serious about getting our fiscal house in order and promote our economic recovery. We’re not going to get there through proposals that make seniors, families, and students pay for what must be a shared sacrifice, and I hope that the President’s speech today will mark the beginning of a national dialogue about the future of our nation.”
BRUCE BRALEY, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa’s 1st District, sent a letter to President Barack Obama expressing concern over the proposed $157.8 billion in taxpayer funds for an “Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund” in the 2011 spending bill:
“Just earlier this week, the Defense Department announced that operations in Libya have cost taxpayers as much as $608 million to date, and it seems that this money came out of the ‘Overseas Contingencies Operations Fund.’ Now, taxpayers are being asked for even more money for this fund – presumably to fund additional operations in Libya. It’s unacceptable for us to engage in yet another overseas mission without a clear understanding of how much we plan to spend, and I believe Americans deserve a clear answer from the President on what this fund will be used for and how much will be spent.”
LEONARD BOSWELL, a Democratic U.S. representative from Iowa’s 3rd District, commented on House Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen’s release of the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget and President Barack Obama’s budget statement:
“I am encouraged that both Ranking Member Van Hollen and President Obama are tackling cuts to spending and ways to generate revenue by ending tax expenditures like oil and gas subsidies and mortgage deductions for vacation homes and yachts. Their plans reflect a desire to grow our country through wise investment in those programs and activities which generate income and reduce overall expenses, while balancing a freeze in discretionary spending. It is time we make smart spending cuts with revenue generating measures such as ending billions in tax giveaways to corporations and special interests. Prioritizing is critical in budgeting, and my vote will always be to preserve Medicare benefits for seniors, instead of extending tax cuts for millionaires. Ending Medicare as we know it by privatizing seniors’ health care and doubling their premiums is just cost-shifting and it is the wrong solution to deficit reduction. We need a multi-pronged attack that cuts domestic spending, phases out the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ends some of the tax subsidies that cost Americans $1 trillion a year. My priority is to bring our budget back into balance with programs and strategies which protect our citizens, strengthen our country, and grow our economy.”