by Congressional Quarterly

ouse Minority Leader John A. Boehner said Wednesday that GOP members will consider imposing a unilateral moratorium on earmark requests this year, in a bid to trump newly announced Democratic limits on member-directed spending. Boehner, R-Ohio, a longtime critic of congressional earmarks, set a Thursday caucus meeting on the topic as House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., announced that his panel will not approve fiscal 2011 earmarks directed to for-profit entities. The annual Defense spending bill contains the largest number of earmarks for private companies, and new Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks , D-Wash., joined Obey in the announcement. Obey and Dicks said that if the new limit had been in effect last year, “it would have resulted in 1,000 fewer earmarks.” Obey and Dicks also announced that agency inspector generals will be required to audit 5 percent of all earmark to “ensure that earmarks go to their intended purposes and to prevent for-profits from masquerading as non-profits.” In addition, the committee announced it will create a single “online ‘one-stop’ link to all House members’ appropriations earmark requests to enable the public to easily view them.” Previously members were required to post the requests on their own Web sites. In the current fiscal year, earmarks totaled just under $16 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. While that is a tiny percentage of more than $1 trillion in fiscal 2010 discretionary spending, they have become a lightning rod for critics of federal spending and ethical problems in Congress. While a number of Republicans like Boehner have fought against earmarks for years, many Republican members actively pursue them. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense, it was a Republican — Rep. C.W. Bill Young of Florida, a senior House appropriator and ranking Republican on the Defense Subcommittee — who received the most solo earmarks in fiscal 2010. His tally was 41 earmarks totaling $90.5 million.

Subscribe to CQ Midday Update »
Subscribe to C-SPAN Alert! »

   by Congressional Quarterly

Jouse Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer vowed Tuesday to resolve the dispute over abortion language that threatens to sink Democrats’ efforts to enact a health care overhaul. But he conceded that so far he has not sat down with Rep. Bart Stupak , D-Mich., the de facto leader of a group of anti-abortion Democrats, to talk about a possible settlement that could provide the votes party leaders will need to pass the health legislation and send it to President Obama for his signature. “Abortion has to be resolved,” Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. “I think it will be resolved one way or the other and the bill will be passed.” Stupak objects to abortion language in the Senate-passed health care bill that he says is an unacceptable watering-down of a provision he negotiated with Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., last November in the House-passed version of the legislation. He says there about a dozen anti-abortion Democrats who won’t vote for final passage of the health legislation if the Senate abortion language isn’t stiffened. Hoyer said Stupak recently approached him on the House floor to request a meeting to discuss the issue. So far, they have not met, Hoyer said. Stupak on Monday signalled willingness to deal. “I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago,” Stupak told The Associated Press between meetings with constituents in his northern Michigan district. “The president says he doesn’t want to expand or restrict current law [on abortion]. Neither do I,” Stupak said. “That’s never been our position. So is there some language that we can agree on that hits both points — we don’t restrict, we don’t expand abortion rights? I think we can get there.” The fight centers on whether individuals receiving federal subsidies to purchase health insurance in the new marketplaces the bill would create should be able to obtain coverage for abortion under those plans. The House bill has a blanket prohibition. The Senate bill is not as restrictive, but would attempt to prevent federal funding for abortion coverage by requiring people buying subsidized policies to make two monthly payments to their insurers — one to cover abortion services, and one for all other medical coverage.

Parties Seek Similar Fiscal Ends, if Not Means

March 8, 2010

   by Congressional Quarterly

With the country facing enormous long-term budget deficits, Democrats and Republicans now echo each other’s rhetoric on the need for fiscal discipline — but they remain sharply divided on nearly every aspect of how they want to achieve that goal. The dynamic has been demonstrated repeatedly during Senate debate on legislation that would extend economic safety-net spending and revive expired tax cuts. Democrats expect to pass the bill Tuesday after disposing of several pending amendments. The majority party has fought to find revenue-raising offsets for the tax-break extensions while maintaining that the bill’s expanded unemployment benefits, health insurance subsidies for jobless people and aid to states do not need similar offsets. Republicans, meanwhile, see hypocrisy in the Democrats’ support for pay-as-you-go policies and their willingness to find exceptions to those rules. They have made a forceful case that anything that Democrats deem a priority should also be important enough to pay for. Yet at the same time, Republicans argue that the tax extenders, such as the research and development credit and a tax break for teachers’ out-of-pocket expenses, should not be offset. Because they are in the majority, Democrats are winning the day on this bill, which includes about $31 billion in fully offset tax breaks and $95.4 billion in “emergency” spending that is not offset. On March 3, Republican Susan Collins of Maine joined the 59 members of the Democratic Caucus to beat back an attempt to strip that emergency designation, which could have forced Democrats to find offsets or scale back the bill. With that hurdle cleared, Democrats say they believe the bill is set up for passage. But that step is not likely to settle the overall issue. Looking ahead, the core differences over applying the pay-as-you-go principle are likely to make it difficult for the two parties to find agreement on tax and budget policy, even as both say they want to shrink the deficit.

View previous stories »