Another possible standoff over government funding may be brewing on Capitol Hill. Congress has until Jan. 30 to pass the remaining appropriations bills to fund the federal government for the remainder of this fiscal year, or to vote on a new continuing resolution to keep the government open.
That self-imposed deadline is the result of a deal congressional lawmakers made just last month to reopen the government after 43 days of stalemate that led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. The shutdown was triggered by Democrats’ efforts to try and save Affordable Care Act subsidies — which are set to expire at the end of the year — and Republican leadership’s refusal to negotiate.
After weeks of no movement, a handful of Senate Democrats broke rank with their party in November to help congressional Republicans pass a continuing resolution and reopen the government without a real promise to protect the Obamacare subsidies. The deal that reopened the government also included a minibus, passing three out of the 12 appropriations bills: Agriculture-FDA, Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and Legislative Branch.
That means Congress has little over a month to pass the remaining nine appropriations bills to avoid a partial government shutdown when the current stopgap expires at the end of January. Passing the remaining appropriations bills or a new CR will, once again, require help from a group of Senate Democrats as funding bills are subjected to the filibuster in the upper chamber.
Democrats have not yet publicly started negotiating on policy specifics for the remaining bills or laid out what they may ask for in exchange for their votes to keep the government open.
That’s likely because they are waiting on congressional Republicans to come to a consensus amongst themselves.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-OK) announced last weekend they have reached an agreement on the overall totals for the remaining nine funding bills Congress needs to pass by the end of January to avoid a new government shutdown.
“We will now begin expeditiously drafting the remaining nine full-year bills to ensure we are ready to complete our work in January,” Cole said in a statement.
That’s the first real progress on the remaining appropriations bills. In reality, for more than a month, Collins and Cole have been trying to work out differences in numbers across the two chambers.
“We have different dynamics in our caucuses that we need to deal with,” Collins said earlier this month.
Meanwhile, Democrats are growing frustrated.
“They wasted all that time during the summer,” House Appropriations Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said, referring to the partisan funding bills House Republicans have been crafting. “Democrats are prepared. We’re ready to move. Let’s go.”
We have seen this story before and know how it ends. The only interesting part of it will be the drama leading up to the concession by the Dems, who’ll get nothing in the negotiation.
What foolhardy demand will the Dems make and the GQP ignore this time?
It’s called kicking the can down the road, it is what the government does best and has a long tradition starting with slavery.
“Reached an agreement” – but with who? (whom?) The other Republicans? The White House? It sounds as if Republicans are still only negotiating among themselves (at best), with the final word coming from the latest whim and rage of their lord and master in the Gilt House.
I still don’t understand the legalities of the legislative process. If legislation, spending or otherwise, comes out of the Congress, and the President signs it, how can the President unilaterally undo e.g. claw back the funding that was (seemingly legally) mutually agreed upon. I know that the daffy ruling by the SCOTUS giving immunity for “Presidential actions under his/her authority,” but how can it apply to these types of situations. Anyone? Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee this morning (or a lingering hangover), but the unitary executive theory just seems like pure BS and undercuts the balance of powers doctrine. If legislative funding is to be undone, shouldn’t that too require legislation to enable that action? Please, scholarly, common sense replies only. LOL!!!
Democrats have another opportunity to grab some much needed attention to their cause.
Will they take it?