FUND THE GOVERNMENT OR PUNT? IT’S TRUMP’S CALL. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) has been saying it for months: The next president will have a major say in whether a government funding deal comes together by the end of December. That role is now Trump’s, and Republicans are expected to defer to whatever he wants, whether that’s a lame-duck spending deal or an early 2025 funding accord, as conservatives have pushed. The president-elect has been here before. In 2016, GOP leaders kicked the funding deadline into his first term. Some congressional Republicans say Trump didn’t end up notably influencing the funding deal eventually wrapped up the following spring, however, and that the delay only complicated his first months in office while hurting federal agencies running on autopilot budgets for more than seven months. It also saddled newly elected lawmakers with the unfinished work of the previous Congress. “No new president should have to face that,” Cole told us before the election, while vowing to support whatever Trump decides. “It’s not fair to them. It’s not fair to any of the new members coming in because this Congress doesn’t want to do its job in the timeframe it was given.” Faced with a funding deadline, especially the Dec. 20 cliff that’s now set to hit the Friday before Christmas, most lawmakers are typically inclined to punt and fly home. But even anticipating a Trump win, Republican appropriators have said in recent months that they’d rather get a deal done by December and clear the decks for 2025, when a fight over expiring tax cuts promises to suck up all the oxygen on Capitol Hill. Weighing in post-election, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who’s also a senior appropriator, didn’t outright express his preference for striking an agreement before the end of the year when asked about next steps under a soon-to-be Republican-controlled White House and Senate. “I think getting our work done — which, no matter who’s been in the majority, we haven’t been able to do that very well for quite a while — deciding how to spend the discretionary money that we have, which is not a very big part of what we spend every year anymore, is really important,” he said. “I would hope we would put a greater priority than the current Senate has on doing the basic work of government, which is deciding how much to spend and getting it done as close to regular order as possible.” McConnell also didn’t indicate what he wants to do after stepping down from leadership, with many speculating that he could snatch up a prime appropriations spot, like chair of the defense spending subpanel. “I haven't made a decision,” he said, adding that he hopes his colleagues seriously consider his input as a former majority leader, regardless. “And I don't think it'll have anything to do with committee assignments.” — Caitlin Emma and Jennifer Scholtes, with help from Katherine Tully-McManus HOUSE GOP’S FLOOR BRAWL While you were likely glued to exit polls or prepping for a late election night, House Republicans found themselves in a scramble after a conservative duo, by all accounts, went rogue and for now successfully killed a bipartisan Social Security bill and attached discharge petition. The incident flew under the radar during Tuesday’s 5 p.m. pro forma session, during which Reps. Andy Harris (R-Md.) and Bob Good (R-Va.) were the only lawmakers in the chamber. Good moved to effectively pigeonhole the bill. Floor staff could be overheard telling Harris that he couldn’t entertain Good’s motion but after several minutes of off-mic conversations, Harris did just that. The minutes-long sessions are generally low or no drama. Leadership hasn’t yet publicly outlined a next step. But supporters of the bill, which eliminates two provisions that limit benefits for some Americans who also receive government pensions, say there are active discussions about how to revive it and several potential pathways through which to do so. It’s the latest drama related to the bill: As we scooped in late September , House Republicans, including members of leadership, are weighing raising the threshold for a discharge petition as part of the rules package for the 119th Congress amid frustration that Reps. Garret Graves (R-La.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), two retiring members, combined forces to leapfrog leadership on this particular petition. But many Republicans also view what Harris and Good did as a scorched earth tactic that would establish a new precedent and invite a wave of bad behavior not only from Republicans but also Democrats. Once one member decides to surprise their colleagues with a unanimous consent request, which is typically telegraphed behind the scenes, it’s only a matter of time before someone else tries to catch their colleagues sleeping. And if that starts happening, things quickly become chaotic for an already chaotic chamber. There’s at least some levity: Graves quipped to us in a statement after the floor surprise: “Now that this new precedent has been created, I plan to seek UC to send every American a pony.” Keep an eye on Friday’s pro forma session. We’re told several members will now likely be on hand to try to prevent, or enact, the next step in this saga. — Jordain Carney
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment