Articles

Pyrrhic Progress

Lawmakers will be busy advancing spending bills this week, even as the appropriations process begins to collapse all around them.

With only five days left before a seven-week summer recess, Congress will at least try to keep up appearances. The House Appropriations Committee is scheduled to complete work on the final two of the 12 annual spending bills needed to fund the government for fiscal 2017. And the full House is set to vote on its Interior-Environment spending bill (HR 5538), which would be the fifth bill to pass that chamber.

But as many lawmakers now grudgingly acknowledge, all the semblance of activity largely amounts to a head fake. By the time Congress reconvenes in September, there simply won't be enough time left to complete work on regular spending bills before the new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1. To avoid a politically deadly government shutdown one month before the elections, some kind of stopgap spending measure will need to be approved, as CQ's Ryan McCrimmon reports.

The first sign of major trouble came last week, when Senate Democrats stunned Republican leaders by blocking the advancement of the Defense spending bill (HR 5293, S 3000) on the Senate floor. The bill had sailed through the Appropriations Committee on a unanimous vote in May, winning bipartisan praise in the process. But Democratic leaders had grown increasingly distrustful of the process in recent weeks, claiming Republicans had violated a bipartisan budget deal (PL 114-74) by boosting defense spending at the expense of domestic spending and incorporating "poison pill" policy riders.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., outraged by what he called "the definition of dysfunction," announced plans to reconsider the procedural vote to revive the defense bill, perhaps as early as this week. But unless Republicans find a way to ease Democratic concerns, the outcome is almost sure to be the same.

All of which explains why lawmakers are starting to talk privately about a stopgap measure known as a continuing resolution, which would extend current funding levels past Sept. 30 to avoid a government shutdown. But there's no agreement among Republicans over how long such a stopgap should last, as CQ's Paul M. Krawzak reports.

Hardcore conservatives are leery of a short-term stopgap that would force negotiations over a catchall spending package for the rest of the fiscal year in a lame-duck session of Congress shortly after the November elections. "We've had two Christmas surprises," said Rep. Dave Brat , R-Va., referring to two previous catchall bills that some said became vessels for excessive spending. "They throw the kitchen sink in, bust all the caps, no discipline," said Brat, a member of the conservative Freedom Caucus who sits on the House Budget Committee. That's why he and other conservatives are pushing for a stopgap that extends into March, allowing a new president and a new Congress to negotiate a final spending package.

But appropriators and defense hawks oppose such a long stopgap, which they say would leave federal agencies in budget limbo for six months and prevent any funding of new programs. "I just think that's a mistake," said Rep. Tom Cole , R-Okla., a senior House appropriator. "And I think it's not very politically smart either. You don't know who the next president is going to be. You don't know what the disposition of strength between the parties of Congress is going to be. We ought to just do the job we are sent here to do and actually fund the government."

Some conservatives were so eager to delay a spending deal that they floated a plan to pass a six-month stopgap before the summer recess. House leaders appear to have nixed that idea, saying such a move would be premature, as CQ's Kellie Mejdrich reports. "I don't think that's the right time to do a CR," said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif., referring to a continuing resolution vote this week. "We can still do approps bills," or regular spending bills, he said.

But the charade of a regular appropriations process won't last much longer. Lawmakers have a long, hot summer to figure out a game plan.

CANCER CLASH: Women in their 40s may lose access to free mammograms, if House appropriators get their way.

In drafting their annual Labor-HHS-Education spending bill last week, appropriators eliminated a mandate for insurers to cover the cancer detection procedure for women in their 40s without charging any co-payments, as CQ's Kerry Young reports. A Senate version of the bill (S 3040) would maintain the mandate.

The American College of Radiology and other groups have argued that some women would skip mammograms and increase their risk of dying from cancer if they were charged co-payments. But House Appropriations staffers said they were forced to eliminate the coverage after the Congressional Budget Office found the provision would drain revenues by $22 million. The $161.6 billion spending bill for fiscal 2017 is already $569 million lower than this year's level.

Cole, the chairman of the Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee, said the provision could be restored during negotiations with the Senate.

PAST PORK: Senate appropriators beat their House counterparts this year in finding leftover defense money to fund new military programs.

In their fiscal 2017 Defense spending bill (S 3000), senators found savings of more than $4 billion from what they said were excess funds unspent from previous years. That's roughly twice the amount found by House appropriators in their own spending measure (HR 5293), as CQ's John M. Donnelly reports.

Some of the programs that could lose already appropriated money are major weapons initiatives for rockets, ships and warplanes. Senators may have had to get more crafty this year because they stopped short of raiding a war spending account to fund other defense programs, as their House counterparts did. The House bill would divert $15.7 billion from the account used to pay for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere to fund new ships, planes and troops. But if that funding shift becomes law, the war fund would run dry by next April, forcing a new president to seek supplemental funding.

SLOW START?: The Obama administration says money to combat the Zika virus is needed immediately, but it's not rushing to spend the funding it already has.

After waiting for months for Congress to approve a requested $1.9 billion, the White House in April agreed to free up $589 million, mostly from unspent money earmarked for the Ebola virus, for immediate use. The administration says money is needed now to begin vaccine trials, eradicate mosquitoes and treat victims of the mosquito-borne Zika virus, which is known to cause birth defects.

But almost three months later, only $112 million has been spent, according to a letter from Sen. Charles E. Grassley , R-Iowa, who demanded an explanation from federal health officials. "Three months seems to be a long time to wait to respond to an impending outbreak," Grassley wrote in his letter to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. He asked for a written response by July 29.

Thomas Frieden, the CDC director, told reporters last week that money is being spent as fast as possible. "It's working its way through the federal steps," he said. "You can't just push a button and send money out. There are laws that have to be followed. That is one reason rapid action is so important."