by Congressional Quarterly

House 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.

Hoyer Predicts Abortion Standoff Will Be Resolved

March 9, 2010

   by Congressional Quarterly

House 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.

Levin Seen as Safe Choice for Ways and Means

March 5, 2010

   by Congressional Quarterly

The ascension of Rep. Sander M. Levin to the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee relieves some political pressure on House Democrats, but it does not resolve the question of who will lead the panel over the long term. Levin, a 14-term Democrat from Michigan, was named acting chairman on Thursday, to audible cheers in the committee room and quieter sighs of relief. He technically replaced Pete Stark , D-Calif., an outspoken, often abrasive liberal who was urged to step aside after one day as interim chairman following the March 3 resignation of Charles B. Rangel. The veteran New York Democrat stepped down after being admonished by the ethics committee last week for breaking House rules by accepting corporate-sponsored Caribbean trips. Amid that turmoil, Levin, a soft-spoken liberal, was seen by colleagues as a safe choice. His automatic rise to the chairmanship following Stark’s withdrawal honored seniority and prevented a fight for the job. “I don’t think it needed to be said. Everyone kind of understood that,” said Joseph Crowley , D-N.Y., adding that Ways and Means members realized the “responsibility of taking into consideration the needs of our caucus.” Furthermore, unlike Rangel and Stark, Levin does not present an obvious target for Republicans running against vulnerable Democratic candidates this fall. But later, he could face challenges from both senior and junior colleagues. Democrats stressed that Levin is “acting chairman” until Rangel’s remaining ethics issues are resolved. The former chairman is being investigated for allegations relating to his use of rent-controlled apartments, failure to disclose rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic and solicitation of donations for a college center named for him. It is possible that the caucus could return him to the chairmanship if he is cleared of all remaining charges. But even if Rangel never reclaims the top spot, the “acting” tag in Levin’s title leaves the door open for challenges from other would-be chairmen. “We start all over again in November,” said Richard E. Neal , D-Mass., who at 61 is a younger and more business-friendly potential chairman. Rangel is 79, and Stark and Levin are both 78.

Michigan’s Levin Tapped to Lead Ways and Means Panel

March 4, 2010

   by Congressional Quarterly

Sander M. Levin was named acting chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, putting an ally of organized labor and the domestic auto industry in a prime spot to advance his interests. Levin, D-Mich., took up the gavel that Charles B. Rangel , D-N.Y., relinquished on Wednesday after being admonished by the House ethics committee. Following succession rules, Pete Stark , D-Calif., became acting chairman on Wednesday. But his fellow Ways and Means Democrats spent the rest of the day prodding the controversial and outspoken liberal to step aside. Stark asked that his name be withdrawn from consideration, said Henry A. Waxman , D-Calif., chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Levin, Waxman said, “had the unanimous support of the members of the Ways and Means Committee.” Levin “will be a powerful advocate for addressing the urgent needs of the American people,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said in a statement. Emerging from a closed-door meeting of committee Democrats on Thursday morning, Levin said that the panel will meet March 9 to discuss plans. He promised to begin “outreach to Republicans.” Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the committee, issued a statement congratulating Levin and saying the two “have had a long and good working relationship, especially when it comes to the research and development tax credit, and I expect that to continue.” The 14-term lawmaker said he had not yet been in touch with his Senate counterpart, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus , D-Mont. “The only senator I talked to for 30 seconds was my brother,” he said, referring to Carl Levin , D-Mich. Levin noted, however, that he and Baucus have “known each other a long time” and worked together on Social Security issues.