iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House Approves Bill With Massive Spending Cuts After All-Night Session


First Posted: 02/19/11 09:09 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM ET

***UPDATED***

WASHINGTON - After an all-night session, House Republicans early Saturday morning passed legislation that would slash $60 billion in government spending between now and the end of September, setting up a showdown with President Barack Obama, who has vowed to veto the measure.

The cuts, which were passed without a single Democratic vote, are aimed primarily at domestic social spending but also have policy goals -- going after the Environmental Protection Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Funding for the government runs out on March 4. Obama said on Tuesday he would veto the House version, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has promised to remove many of the bill's funding cuts. So Saturday's passage makes a government shutdown more likely, not less.

The bill is a stop-gap measure - known as a continuing resolution - that would establish spending levels for the rest of the current fiscal year. An even shorter-term solution to buy the chambers more time for a compromise may be off of the table, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday.

"We are hopeful that the Senate will take up the House passed bill that comes out of here today, tonight, tomorrow morning, whenever it is, and we hope that they will move it," he said. "But I am not going to move any kind of short term CR at current levels. When we say we're going to cut spending, read my lips: We are going to cut spending."

But he later backed off the threat, telling reporters on Friday he would allow for another stop-gap funding bill to prevent government shutdown. Details of that plan will be released "soon enough," he said.

The bill passed 235 to 189, with three Republicans joining all the chamber's Democrats in voting no.

An aide to Nancy Pelosi told Democratic chiefs of staff on Friday that he thinks a government shutdown is likely.

The final funding bill approved by the House included a number of amendments after a time-intensive process that kept lawmakers debating and voting late on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights as well. Some amendments were approved with bipartisan support, such as an effort to kill funding to a Pentagon program to build duplicate fighter jet engines. That amendment, which was supported by the Pentagon, passed on Wednesday in a 233-198 vote.

Other amendments would take additional funding from agencies that were already weakened by the original funding bill. The Environmental Protection Agency, already facing $3 billion in cuts from the main bill, would lose an additional $8.4 million for its greenhouse gas registry thanks to a measure introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kans.), which was added in a 239-185 vote.

The House also targeted the EPA's regulations on cement plants, approving in a 250-177 vote an amendment prohibiting the agency from using funds to implement or enforce the rule.

White House "czars," or advisers would also be banned after an amendment by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), which was approved on Thursday in a 249-149 vote. The amendment prohibited funds to be used to so-called czars on health care, climate change, global warming, green jobs, automobiles, Guantanamo Bay Closure, Pay and Fairness Doctrine.

"To the czars I say, Nyet," Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Ky.) said in support of the amendment. "I will leave it to the gentleman to work out his Lenin fantasy," Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) quipped in response.


On Friday, the House approved two amendments to de-fund the president's health care law, another step toward blocking the legislation they have already voted to repeal. The amendments, both introduced by Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King, would block funding to implement health care reform and prohibit agencies from hiring staff to implement the law, effectively rendering its protections against insurance companies unenforceable.

Another longtime Republican target, Planned Parenthood, would be banned from receiving funding under an amendment offered by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), which Democrats called an "all-out war on women." The measure would prevent the organization from receiving any federal funding because it performs abortions -- even though using government money for abortions is already illegal -- undermining programs for reproductive health and pregnancy prevention.

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) spoke out against the attack on Planned Parenthood after delivering an emotional account on the House floor of an emergency abortion she underwent for medical reasons.

"A continuing resolution is a mechanism to allow the government to continue to operate," Speier told HuffPost. "It should not be a vehicle for political rhetoric and high drama that was exhibited last night on an issue that was unrelated to the federal budget. It didn't create one job, it didn't reduce the deficit, so what was the point?"

Efforts by Democrats to restore funding to agencies were mostly voted down. Rep. Rush Holt's (D-N.J.) amendment to restore some funding to the CFPB was struck down on a party-line vote Thursday 163-265, leaving the bureau with only half of its current funding in the final bill. Frank attempted to restore $131 million in funds to the Securities and Exchange Commission, but that amendment also failed in a 160-270 vote.

"I've talked to a lot of people about whether they like the freedom to be cheated on credit cards, to be cheated on mortgages, to be cheated on overdraft fees, and I found that was not really a freedom they valued," Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) said on the House floor on Thursday. "They don't really value that any more than Americans 100 years ago valued the right to buy rancid beef."

An amendment to end a tax loophole for major oil companies, introduced by Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), failed in a 251-174 vote on Friday. Democrats aimed to end subsidies to Big Oil as a revenue-booster to protect social programs, but found little support from Republicans.

"Republicans once again sided with BP, Exxon and the oil companies, not with the American taxpayer and the poorest Americans most in need of help," Markey said in a statement. "This legislation focuses on just the kind of special interest loophole that should be closed before we open attacks on programs for the poorest Americans."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
***UPDATED*** WASHINGTON - After an all-night session, House Republicans early Saturday morning passed legislation that would slash $60 billion in government spending between now and the end of Sep...
***UPDATED*** WASHINGTON - After an all-night session, House Republicans early Saturday morning passed legislation that would slash $60 billion in government spending between now and the end of Sep...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,301
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (176 total)
06:22 PM on 03/11/2011
Shut it down!!! balance the budget now
02:38 PM on 03/04/2011
Where are the jobs BOEHNER??????

I have to say that I'm 77 yrs old and have never seen such upheavals in government. Has the whole world gone mad????? Never has a President had so much on his plate. One after the other the fighting, bantering, loss of jobs, loss of education, loss of money ad nauseum, have hit this President like a ton of bricks. I think he is doing an awesome job dealing with all this without losing his temper. If I were faced with all these numb nuts I'd have a terrible time not laughing or lashing out.
Back your President with every thing you have!!!!!!!
06:24 PM on 03/11/2011
tell your friends to relax, no one loses jobs and SS checks still get mailed... all that will happen is the same thing that happened in 1995. it will put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services till they can balance the budget
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SaveWillowpark
10:13 AM on 02/22/2011
Surprise, surprise!

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

Some people seem to think we are rather foolish to think we actually have any control over any of this and that our political system only exists to give us the illusion of control.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SansCulottes08
09:05 AM on 02/22/2011
Would shutting down the government mean shutting down the Pentagon and the CIA, and would it mean that US participation in wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and wherever else they've started one since last time I checked, and and would it mean that there is no money for the 700 or so US military bases on foreign soil, and would it mean that there is no more money for military contractors?

Then bring it on, I say. See how long these Republican hyopcrites can last when the parasites who profit from the endless war economy at the expense of the American people start to howl for their daily fare of bloody red meat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SaveWillowpark
10:15 AM on 02/22/2011
I'm sure they have some how shielded the sectors you mention. It would be too good to be true otherwise.
07:27 AM on 02/22/2011
You would think oil company subsidies would go against the free market in these times, but then again, I suppose we are expecting coherence.
12:21 AM on 02/22/2011
I live in a senior park. What are we to do when we don't get our SS checks. I don't know. This is causing a lot of anxiety amongst our friends and family. My hatred for the republicans knows no bounds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SaveWillowpark
10:18 AM on 02/22/2011
Would have been nice for seniors to think about this before putting so many Republicans into power. Please listen to "us" next time! Democrats watch out for seniors generally.
05:28 PM on 02/22/2011
I hear you. I live in California, the part that elects Democrats.
07:55 PM on 02/24/2011
Social Security checks will still be mailed. Both Obama and Harry Reid lied when they said that a government shutdown would delay Social Security checks. A government shutdown would have little impact on most Americans, but could save us billions.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
CaptD
Freedom From Nuclear Fascism...
08:44 PM on 02/21/2011
If Obama does not Veto this I'll lose all faith in the CHANGE he promised!
06:28 PM on 03/11/2011
most already have
06:26 PM on 02/21/2011
Massive cute? Are you kidding me? Massive is the amount of the debt. Miniscule is a more appropriate term when defining these measly cuts.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:05 PM on 02/21/2011
The tax loophole for oil companies is proof that this is just grandstanding. The Republicunning are NOT interested in cutting government spending, they are interested in giving money away to their lobbyist friends.

But we didn't actually need that proof, did we?
07:16 PM on 02/21/2011
Are the proposed Republican cuts difficult, sure, are they party aligned cuts, absolutely, but if the cuts can be made in these areas they should. My issue is not with these cuts to the government, but that they are aligned by party (Republican Congress so let's go after Planned Parenthood but not the oil co. tax loophole). I'm hopeful, although not at all confident that more cuts will be made to more right-wing related groups, including war spending. I just wish these people (all Congressmen and Senators on both sides) could man up make difficult cuts to things they traditionally support because cuts need to be made and more than just 60 billion. This needs to happen, picking away at Dem favored groups simply is not enough and thus ultimately I agree that it is grandstanding. If you want to cut make the difficult decisions that will allow your cuts to get through the Senate and Obama, just cutting left wing programs will be ultimately unsuccessful and spinning your own wheels just to look good.

I would also support increasing taxes to the uber wealthy who have been able to become rich off the programs we have in America. I don't think it's too much to ask for them to pay for the American ideologies that helped them hit it big so America can continue to be a land of opportunity in the future.

Finally, I like this author. She uses quotes to make points from both sides.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
12:23 PM on 02/21/2011
I hope that the people who voted these lunatics into office are now satisfied that the spending cuts are going to affect them. Somehow when they were campaigning, all they talked about was cutting waste, but there is not enough waste to cut and not enough fat to cut and now they are cutting the muscle and bone that will make our future viable. So you cut funds to the EPA and more pollution destroys our environment, and you cut oversight of Wall Street and more financial chicanery takes place and the economy suffers, and you cut medical funding and more people die. Hope you like the future you are making.
11:33 AM on 02/21/2011
Typical of republicans,make the oil companies richer even if it means stealing from the poor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bertski
just a guy trying not to be part of the problem
10:08 AM on 02/21/2011
I'm reminded of the inspiring movie, "Dave," where the guy pretending to be the President (played brilliantl­y by Kevin Kline) had to creatively cut the budget in dramatic fashion. He did so with common sense.

There are so many small things that can and must be cut now, with the cumulative effect adding up to a significan­t amount. Things like the $200,000 per month that the House spends on bottled water, etc. The excesses are everywhere­, they add up fast, and they could easily be eliminated­, instead of making further cuts to services that our country desperatel­y needs. This will not happen until the American people speak up loudly about what we demand from our government­, so get your signs and megaphones ready. Fire up your blogs. Make some peaceful noise, point fingers at the culprits, and demand that our elected officials (a.k.a "employees­") experience some of the belt-tight­ening that they insist we endure.

This may be pure goofiness on my part, but I keep wondering what it is costing American taxpayers to keep our elected officials in rather ornate, extravagan­t offices throughout our nation. Many of them resemble museums, and the cost to maintain them has to be much higher than it might be for more "standard" office space. Maybe someone might research whether we could save some money relocating some of these folks into less expensive digs. Just a thought.
Syllogizer
Barely Left of Pobedonostsev
04:06 PM on 02/21/2011
You should be able to do your own back-of-the-envelope estimate. You will find that it is much smaller than you think. Especially much smaller than the money just given away to the oil companies.
07:28 AM on 02/22/2011
Personally I'm willing to keep them in that grand old building.

But maybe they could take a 10% pay cut to help fund it.

(This will never happen)
photo
WOODSTOCKER51
HAVE A NICE DAY!
10:04 AM on 02/21/2011
Other points aside, research has shown that small farms receive more payments in relation to value of their crops than big farms.[32] the tarifs on sugar have also forced most large candymakers in the USA to Canada and Mexico were sugar is often half to a third the price.[33]
Non-farming companiesSubsidies are also given to companies and individuals with little connection to traditional farming. It has been reported that the largest part of the sum given to these companies flow to multinational companies like food conglomerates, sugar manufacturers and liquor distillers. For example in France, the single largest beneficiary was the chicken processor Groupe Doux, at €62.8m, and was followed by about a dozen sugar manufacturers which together reaped more than €103m
.LETS MAKE SOME REAL CUTS.FOR THE WEALTHY "FARMERS"..