This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/us/politics/congress-budget-deal-vote.html

The article has changed 17 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Facing Shutdown, Congress Set to Vote on Sweeping Budget Deal Government Shutdown Looms as Rand Paul Protests Budget Deal
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Congress moved toward a vote on Thursday on a far-reaching budget deal that would avert an imminent government shutdown while clearing a path to funding the government for the rest of the fiscal year. WASHINGTON — The federal government on Thursday night slid toward at least a brief shutdown as a single Republican senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, held off a vote on a far-reaching budget deal that would stave it off.
But angry opposition from the Republicans’ most ardent conservatives, coupled with Democratic dissenters dismayed that the deal does nothing for young immigrants, was creating fresh tension as the clock ticks toward a midnight shutdown. Angered at the huge spending increases at the center of the deal, Mr. Paul delayed the vote for hours with a demand to hold a vote on an amendment.
The Senate was expected to vote on the deal first, and it appeared that the chamber had more than enough votes to pass the measure. But in the House, passage is not a forgone conclusion. “The reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot,” Mr. Paul said. “I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, ‘How come you were against President Obama’s deficits and then how come you’re for Republican deficits?’”
The text of the deal, stretching more than 600 pages, was released late Wednesday night, revealing provisions large and small that would go far beyond the basic budget numbers. The accord would raise strict spending caps on domestic and military spending in this fiscal year and the next one by about $300 billion. It would also lift the federal debt limit until March 2019 and includes almost $90 billion in disaster relief in response to last year’s hurricanes and wildfires. He showed no sign of relenting, delivering a floor speech in which he bemoaned out-of-control government spending.
Critically, it would also keep the government funded for another six weeks, giving lawmakers time to put together a long-term spending bill that would stretch through the rest of the fiscal year. The current temporary funding measure is set to expire at midnight on Thursday. “I think the country’s worth a debate until 3 in the morning, frankly,” he said.
Beyond those budget numbers, negotiators included other provisions, some popular, others that may never have survived a full and open debate. The deal would repeal a powerful provision in the Affordable Care Act that empowered an independent medical advisory board to control the spiraling costs of Medicare. It would extend for one year 48 different tax credits that expired at the end of 2016, including credits related to mine safety, energy efficiency, rum imports, horse racing and economic development in American Samoa. Before Mr. Paul waged his assault on the budget deal, trouble was already brewing in the House, where angry opposition from the Republicans’ most ardent conservative members, coupled with Democratic dissenters dismayed that the deal does nothing for young undocumented immigrants, was creating fresh tension as the clock ticked toward midnight.
It would exempt a small private college in Kentucky from a tax on large higher education endowments that was included in last year’s tax law. Senate Democrats had used a parliamentary objection to strip that exemption, for Berea College, from the tax measure in December, only to see it return two months later. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, told a closed-door meeting of House Democrats that she would oppose the deal, and said Democrats would have leverage if they held together to demand a debate on immigration legislation. But she suggested she would not stand in the way of lawmakers who wanted to vote their conscience.
And it would reauthorize funding for community health centers for two years with a $600 million increase as part of a new budget deal. Funding for the health centers, which serve more than 27 million people, had expired in October. The struggle to push the bill through the House highlighted the divisions within the Democratic caucus over how hard to push on the issue of immigration as Congress prepares to turn its focus to that politically volatile subject.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin expressed confidence on Thursday morning that the bill would pass the House. But he also signaled that Republicans would not be able to muster enough votes to pass the measure on their own. The text of the deal, stretching more than 600 pages, was released late Wednesday night, revealing provisions large and small that would go far beyond the basic budget numbers. The accord would raise strict spending caps on domestic and military spending in this fiscal year and the next one by about $300 billion in total. It would also lift the federal debt limit until March 2019 and includes almost $90 billion in disaster relief in response to last year’s hurricanes and wildfires.
“Part of it depends on the Democrats,” Mr. Ryan told the radio host Hugh Hewitt. “This is a bipartisan bill. It’s going to need bipartisan support. We are going to deliver our share of support. I feel very good about Republicans.” Critically, it would also keep the government funded for another six weeks, giving lawmakers time to put together a long-term spending bill that would stretch through the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The current temporary funding measure was set to expire at midnight on Thursday.
A sizable number of House Republicans are likely to rebel against the deal because of its huge increase in spending. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which has roughly three dozen members, formally opposed the deal on Wednesday night. The deal was expected to sail through the Senate, and the House planned to vote on it later Thursday, until Mr. Paul took his stand.
“It was pretty much a smorgasbord of spending and policy that got added to this,” said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “Normally, people who eat at smorgasbords all the time are not the healthiest.” The White House Office of Management and Budget instructed federal agencies to prepare for a possible lapse in funding, a spokeswoman said Thursday night. The shutdown would be the second of the year, coming after a three-day closure last month that took place after the vast majority of Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Mr. Paul, blocked a bill that would have kept the government open.
On the other side of the political spectrum, some House Democrats could vote against it because it does nothing to move Congress closer to protecting undocumented young immigrants brought to the country as children, known as Dreamers. This time around, Senate leaders from both parties nudged Mr. Paul to stop holding up the vote.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said on Wednesday that she would oppose the budget deal unless Mr. Ryan offered a commitment to hold a vote on legislation in the House that would address the fate of the Dreamers. Lawmakers are seeking action to protect them because Mr. Trump is ending an Obama-era program that shields them from deportation, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. “It’s his right, of course, to vote against the bill, but I would argue that it’s time to vote,” Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader.
On Thursday morning, Ms. Pelosi said she hoped Mr. Ryan would “man up” and make such a pledge, along the lines of one made by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader. Nonetheless, Ms. Pelosi called the budget deal “a good bill.” His Democratic counterpart, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, echoed the sentiment. “We’re in risky territory here,” Mr. Schumer warned.
“I’m pleased with the product,” she said. “I’m not pleased with the process.” Among the Democratic ranks in the House, the objections were also strenuous, but for very different reasons than what Mr. Paul argued.
Later Thursday, Mr. Ryan stressed his desire to address the fate of the young immigrants. But he did not offer the kind of open-ended commitment that might assuage Ms. Pelosi. Instead, he signaled that whatever bill the House considers would be one that Mr. Trump supports. With the monthslong budget impasse soon to be behind them, lawmakers are girding for a fight over the fate of young immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children, known as Dreamers, as well as President Trump’s plan to build a wall along the border with Mexico and other possible immigration policy changes.
The uncertain outlook for immigration legislation, and the disagreements on the best strategy to move forward, was starkly apparent this week as Ms. Pelosi commanded the House floor for more than eight hours on Wednesday in an effort to help the young immigrants.
On Thursday, Ms. Pelosi herself displayed the conflicting pressures on Democrats. She simultaneously hailed the budget deal while proclaiming she would vote against it because it did not move Congress closer to helping the Dreamers. In a letter to colleagues, she explained her opposition to the budget deal, but also nodded to its virtues and held back from pressuring other Democrats to vote against it.
“I’m pleased with the product,” she told reporters. “I’m not pleased with the process.”
The fate of the Dreamers has been in question since Mr. Trump moved in September to end the Obama-era program that shields them from deportation, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The president gave Congress six months to come up with a solution to resolve their fate.
In recent months, Democrats have tried to make use of the leverage they have in fiscal negotiations, and the issue of immigration played a central role in last month’s shutdown. But Democrats have struggled to determine how hard they should push.
In last month’s closure, most Senate Democrats voted to block a bill that would have kept the government open, only to retreat a few days later and agree to end the closure after Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, promised a Senate debate on immigration.
This time, House Democrats had clearly made differing calculations about the best way to exert influence over immigration.
Representative Luis V. Gutiérrez, Democrat of Illinois, demanded that Ms. Pelosi use her muscle to “stop the Democrats from folding.”
“Anyone who votes for the Senate budget deal is colluding with this president and this administration to deport Dreamers,” he said. “It is as simple as that.”
Democrats also ran the risk of angering liberal activists who want to see them take a stand. Ben Wikler, the Washington director for MoveOn, said that House Democrats would be making a strategic mistake by voting for the budget deal.
“If you’re looking at a boulder and you have a choice between a lever or your bare hands, you should use the lever,” he said.
But Democrats secured important victories in the budget pact, obtaining big increases in funding for domestic programs. Voting against those wins in order to take a stand on DACA — and possibly shutting down the government — carried its own political risks.
Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, noted that the budget deal “meets nearly every one of our priorities.”
“If Democrats cannot support this kind of compromise, Congress will never function,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi said on Wednesday that she would oppose the budget deal unless Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin offered a commitment to hold a vote on legislation in the House that would address the fate of the Dreamers.
On Thursday, Mr. Ryan stressed his desire to address the fate of the young immigrants. But he did not offer the kind of open-ended commitment that might assuage Ms. Pelosi. Instead, he signaled that whatever bill the House considers would be one that Mr. Trump supports.
“To anyone who doubts my intention to solve this problem and bring up a DACA and immigration reform bill, do not,” he said. “We will bring a solution to the floor, one that the president will sign.”“To anyone who doubts my intention to solve this problem and bring up a DACA and immigration reform bill, do not,” he said. “We will bring a solution to the floor, one that the president will sign.”
The budget bill goes far beyond just raising federal spending to make permanent and temporary policy changes with far-reaching impacts. Perhaps most significantly, it would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s 15-member panel known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, created to get Medicare spending under control. The spotlight was on House Democrats in part because it became apparent that Republican leaders most likely lacked the votes to push the budget deal through the House with only votes from their own party.
President Barack Obama and his first budget director, Peter R. Orszag, as well as some health economists, championed the board as one of the most significant cost-control provisions of the 2010 health care law. But health care providers and some advocates for Medicare beneficiaries opposed the board, saying it could threaten patients’ access to care. Republicans said the panel symbolized much that was wrong with “Obamacare.” A sizable number of House Republicans are rebelling against the deal because of its huge increase in spending. The conservative House Freedom Caucus, which has roughly three dozen members, formally opposed the deal on Wednesday night.
With bipartisan opposition, however, members of the panel have never been appointed. Under the Affordable Care Act, the board was intended to recommend specific savings if Medicare spending per beneficiary was projected to grow faster than certain benchmarks. That has yet to happen. “It was pretty much a smorgasbord of spending and policy that got added to this,” said Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina and the chairman of the Freedom Caucus. “Normally, people who eat at smorgasbords all the time are not the healthiest.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that eliminating the cost-control board would increase federal spending by a total of $17.5 billion over 10 years, because its recommendations would take effect in some years. Spending cuts recommended by the panel would take effect automatically unless Congress voted to block or change them.
Another provision buried in the bill makes a tweak to the sweeping tax overhaul that Congress approved in December, changing the language that spells out which colleges and universities are subject to an excise tax on their investment income.
The bill adds language that makes the excise tax applicable only to schools with “tuition-paying” students, shielding a school in Mr. McConnell’s home state, Berea College, that does not charge tuition.
The deal would also cut $1.35 billion in funding to an Affordable Care Act program meant to improve public health and prevention funding for states and municipalities. But it would give $6 billion in new funding to states to use fighting the opioid epidemic.
It would extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides health insurance to children in low-income families, for an additional four years. Last month’s spending bill had already extended the program for six years, so now CHIP will be funded for an entire decade.
The bill extends a number of special payment bonuses for different Medicare providers, many of which were once intended to be temporary, but are regularly extended by Congress. Those include extra payments for rural hospitals, a higher payment rate for ambulances, and increased payment rates to certain Medicare doctors. It preserves loan repayment programs for health providers who choose to work in underserved areas, and preserves funding for hospitals that train residents.
The bill expands pilot programs meant to test the value of in-home care for some Medicare patients. And it expands the ability of private Medicare Advantage plans to offer so-called “telehealth,” where doctors treat patients over the phone or internet. It would allow Medicare providers who are part of an accountable care association to offer patients cash bonuses as incentives for healthy behaviors.
The bill increases discounts that pharmaceutical companies must give seniors enrolled in the Medicare Part D drug plans, by making the so-called “doughnut hole” smaller. This was a policy that was part of the Affordable Care Act, but the new legislation would speed up implementation by one year.
The bill would also extend funding for abstinence-only sex education programs.