Update on the 111th Congress
By GAI Faculty (Kenneth Gold, Ph.D., Director; Senior Fellows: Marian Currinder, Ph.D., Susan Lagon, Ph.D., and John Haskell, Ph.D.)
The 111th Congress to date has been one of the busiest in years, maybe decades. The Democratically-controlled Congress has had to confront the recession and the financial crisis, passing the massive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February in an attempt to stop the downward economic spiral. Subsequently they have taken on major initiatives to regulate the financial industry, reform the health care system, and combat global climate change. As we approach the August recess, those efforts are works in progress. Here we focus on the meat and potatoes on Congress’s plate: defense legislation, annual budget bills, and federal worker issues. We also take a peak at how the electoral landscape is shaping up for the midterms in 2010.
Overview of Defense Issues
For FY 2010 the administration requested a base defense budget of $515 billion, which is $36 billion more than Congress appropriated for FY 09, representing a real increase, after inflation, of 5 ½ %. In mid-June Congress passed and the president signed the $106 billion war supplemental, which included $80 billion to fund war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (see the July newsletter for details on the supplemental). As of the end of July, the defense authorization bill has passed both chambers and has gone to an informal conference at this writing; and the defense appropriations bill has passed in the House, but is still waiting committee action in the Senate.
The Defense Authorization Bill
On June 25 the House passed HR 2647, its version of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization, by a vote of 389-22. It authorizes $550.4 billion for DOD and nuclear weapons programs in the Energy Department, and $130 billion for war operations, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House bill includes $369 million for 12 F-22 Raptors, and $603 million for an alternate second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike fighter, both of which are opposed by Secretary of Defense Gates, and which President Obama has threatened to veto.
Although the House defeated an amendment to add $1.2 billion for missile defense testing, with an offsetting reduction in environmental cleanup funds, the bill fully funds the administration’s request for $9.3 billion for ballistic missile defense. It also authorized a 3.4 percent military pay raise, which is half a percent higher than the administration’s request, and funds to terminate the Army’s manned ground combat vehicle program and the VH-71 presidential helicopter fleet.
Following two weeks of debate, on July 23 the Senate passed S 1390, its version of the Defense Authorization, by a vote of 87-7. Two days earlier it had settled the most contentious provisions of the bill, voting 58-40 to strip the bill of $1.75 billion to buy seven additional F-22s. The bill was also stripped of continued funding for the second engine for the F-35. The Senate adopted an amendment that would require DOD to spend $353 million in FY 09 and FY 10 for a missile defense system in Europe to defend against Iranian missiles.
Both authorizations are in the $680 billion range, with the major differences being over F-22 funding and the second engine for the F-35. Hope for building more F-22s seemed to have died when Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-PA) essentially conceded the fight following the 58-40 Senate vote against funding more planes. Another remaining issue is a controversial hate crimes provision that extends federal hate crimes laws to offenses relating to gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.
Last week the House and Senate began an “informal” conference on the Defense Authorization between members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as yet unnamed members of the House. The plan is to iron out differences between the bills during the August recess, and to write a final bill in early September.
Defense Appropriations
On Thursday of last week, the House passed HR 3326, the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations bill, by a vote of 400-30. The defense measure was the last of the twelve appropriations bills to be passed by the House. The subcommittee bill would fund $636.3 billion, which is $3.8 b less than the administration requested, and includes $128.2 billion in war funding. The administration prevailed on the F-22 fight, as the House approved an amendment, by a vote of 269-165, that stripped the bill of the $369 million that had passed in subcommittee to continue the funding of twelve additional F-22s. The money would be redirected to purchase spare parts for existing F-22s and for C-17 cargo planes. The subcommittee bill held firm on three other fronts: the withholding of funding to move the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, continued funding of the new fleet of VH-71 presidential helicopters, and $560 million to fund a second, alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which the president has threatened to veto.
The termination of the F-22 program represents a major victory for the president and for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, both of whom strongly opposed the continued production of a fighter plane that was designed to defeat advanced Soviet war planes over Europe. Supporters of the F-22 had mounted a vigorous lobbying campaign over the last several months, at one point claiming that cutting the plane would mean the loss of 95,000 jobs. Despite Chairman Murtha’s reversal of his earlier support for the F-22, as well as the president’s veto threat, the subcommittee’s ranking Republican, Bill Young (R-FL) took the fight to the floor of the House when debate on the Appropriations Bill began on Thursday.
Jeff Flake (R-AZ,) a fiscal hawk and staunch opponent of earmarks, shattered the House record for amendments, which previously stood at 220 on the climate change bill, by filing 553 amendments to the defense bill, although the rule allowed only nine of them to come to the floor. According to Congressman Flake the bill contains more than a thousand earmarks totaling some $2.7 billion. In the Senate, the Defense Appropriations Committee held a hearing in mid-June, but has yet to move the bill through committee.
Federal Employee-Related Legislation
1. Pay Raise/Contracting Out
In mid-July the House approved a 2% raise for federal civilian employees in FY 2010, which is the amount the administration requested, but under the 2.9% raise under consideration in the Senate. The House pay raise is contained in HR 3170, the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill. Both the House and Senate Defense Authorizations provide for a 3.4% raise for members of the military.
The spending bill also contains language consistent with the president’s proposal to require the government to conduct functions that are “inherently governmental,” which has the potential to reverse years of movement toward increasingly contracting work out.
2. Sick Leave/Benefits
The House-passed version of the defense authorization contains several provisions related to federal employee benefits, including a provision for sick leave credit. However, in a move that took supporters by surprise, a companion measure in the Senate version of the defense bill was withdrawn at the last minute after the bill reached the floor. The amendment was blocked by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), a physician and determined critic of what he regards as unnecessary federal spending, which has earn earned him the nickname “Dr. No.” The provision would have permitted federal employees under FERS to count unused sick leave toward their retirement.
Senator Coburn, who claimed the bill would have cost $3.1 billion, actually filibustered the amendment on the floor for several hours, a tactic that is frequently threatened but rarely used in the modern Senate. In addition to railing against wasteful spending in his filibuster, Sen. Coburn also used the time to explain, among other things, how to catch an armadillo (they apparently crave marshmallows.) Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI), the amendment’s sponsor, contended that the bill would have actually saved the government money by limiting unnecessary sick leave costs, and reduce the deficit by $36 million over ten years.
Both the House and Senate versions of the legislation also contained provisions that would allow agencies to temporarily rehire retired feds and pay them full salaries; provide locality pay for feds in Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories; and allow CSRS employees who work part-time at the end of their careers to recalculate annuities based on full-time salaries. Most of the provisions that Sen. Akaka sought are still in the House version of the Defense Authorization, so there is a good chance that they’ll be restored over the next month in conference.
3. Parental Leave
In early June the House passed HR 626, which would amend the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act to provide four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees that would apply to births, adoptions, or foster care. The bill was criticized as being too expensive, mostly by Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cost $938 million from 2010 to 2014. A companion bill in the Senate has not yet received consideration in the chamber. The House also adopted an amendment that will allow time spent on active duty with the military reserves or National Guard by federal employees to be counted toward their leave eligibility.
4. Same Sex Partner Benefits
At the end of July the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia passed HR 2517, that would provide health and retirement benefits to same sex domestic partners of gay and lesbian federal employees and retirees. The bill is expected to be taken up by the full committee in September.
5. Federal Whistleblowers
Also in late July, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee approved a bill, S 372, that would provide most federal whistleblowers who are retaliated against the right to jury trials in federal court, rather than having their complaints heard before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The bill would also extend whistleblower protections to employees of the Transportation Security Administration for the first time, and would create a presidentially-appointed board to adjudicate claims of retaliation by whistleblowers in the intelligence agencies. A companion bill has been introduced in the House.
Budget Legislation
As noted in the first paragraph, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in February, a $787 billion package of spending and tax cuts, in an effort to arrest the downward economic spiral and reinvigorate the job market. The bill provided funding for health care IT, alternative energy research and investment, and literally hundreds of existing federal programs, most on the domestic side. It was passed using emergency rules outside the regular budget process.
Most government agencies were operating under continuing resolution when the 111th Congress convened in January. Only the departments of Homeland Security, Defense, and Veterans Affairs had received funding for FY 2009. Congress wrapped nine bills together into a $410 billion omnibus package in March to complete process.
In the regular process for FY 2010, Congress moved in late April on the Concurrent Budget Resolution. For more details, see the May newsletter (issue 62).
The budget resolution included $1.086 trillion for non-emergency discretionary spending for FY 2010. This represented a 7.2% increase over the FY 2009 total.
Although the congressional Democrats had every intention of moving quickly to get all 12 appropriations bills on track to be signed into law by the beginning of the new fiscal year, no one seriously thinks this can be done. The good news is that the House has passed all twelve bills. The Senate should have all but the Defense appropriations bill through committee by August 7, when the chamber goes on recess. At least four bills (Homeland Security, Legislative Branch, Energy and Water, and Agriculture) will have passed the Senate floor by that time.
At this point, the aim is to pass all 12 bills individually, something that hasn’t been done since 2005. Going back to the late 1990s, the Senate in particular has usually been unable to tackle several bills in the regular process necessitating the use of omnibus packages to get the job done. Look for three or four bills to be completed on time this year, with the remainder coming in the last three months of the calendar year.
The Political Landscape: Looking Ahead to 2010
If history is any indicator, congressional Democrats face an uphill battle in 2010. The president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections for a couple of reasons. First, weak House candidates who rode into office on the president’s coattails are weeded out as voters readjust their preferences. And second, voters who disapprove of the president’s performance at the midterm tend to punish his party’s candidates. Next year at this time, members will be headed home for their final months of campaigning. A look at campaign scenarios, partisan strategies, and targeted races follows.
Senate
So far, nine senators have announced that they will not run for reelection in 2010. Seven are retiring: Republicans Kit Bond (MO), Judd Gregg (NH), Mel Martinez (FL), George Voinovich (OH), Jim Bunning (KY), and Democrats Ted Kaufman (DE) and Roland Burris (IL). Two Republican senators—Sam Brownback (KS) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)—are running for governor. As of now, Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats will be defending 19 seats each in 2010.
Of the 19 Republican-held seats up in 2010, eight are in solid red states (KY, KS, AK, GA, LA, OK, SC, and SD). Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s announcement that he would seek Mel Martinez’s seat brightened Republican prospects in Florida. But Republican-held seats in Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio are likely to be quite competitive.
Missouri Republicans are likely to run Representative Roy Blunt for the open Senate seat. He’ll face a formidable opponent in Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri’s Secretary of State and member of one of the state’s most well-known political families. In New Hampshire, Republicans lack a clear front-runner for the seat that Judd Gregg is relinquishing. Whomever they choose will likely face Democratic Representative Paul Hodes.
While Democrats believe they have a good shot at defeating North Carolina Senator Richard Burr just as they did Elizabeth Dole in 2008, they currently lack a strong, high profile candidate. In Ohio, Democratic optimism is fueled by President Obama’s win in the state last year. Rob Portman, a former Representative who also served as U.S. trade representative and OMB director for President George W. Bush, is the probable Republican candidate and is the party’s best bet to keep the seat. He will likely face Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, whose candidacy is supported by many of the state’s high profile Democrats.
Senate Democrats appear to be in slightly better shape. The ones in the most danger are probably Connecticut’s Chris Dodd, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Colorado’s Michael Bennet. Dodd’s ties to the financial industry have led to some missteps that put his seat in serious jeopardy. The GOP frontrunner is former Congressman Rob Simmons. Reid’s popularity among Nevada voters has declined significantly, and Bennet has never held elective office. He was appointed after Ken Salazar stepped down to join the Obama administration. But Republicans have not produced viable challengers for either Reid or Bennet.
Republicans might also have a shot at Democratic-held seats in Delaware, Illinois, and New York. The race for Vice President Joe Biden’s former Delaware seat could become competitive if popular Republican Representative (and former governor) Michael Castle decides to throw his hat in the ring. He is said to be leaning in that direction. And given the ongoing controversy surrounding the Illinois seat that Roland Burris holds, Republicans believe they have a good shot at claiming President Obama’s former seat with Congressman Mark Kirk as their candidate. Kirsten Gillibrand, who took Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat, is facing a contentious primary challenge from Representative Carolyn Maloney. A viable Republican candidate has yet to emerge, however.
House
On the other side of Capitol Hill, 17 House members have announced plans to seek higher office rather than run for reelection in 2010. Four Democrats and four Republicans are running for the Senate; two Democrats and six Republicans are running for governor; and one member—Adam Putnam (R-FL)—is running for state Agriculture Commissioner. Unless more Democrats announce their retirements, Republicans will be defending more open seats next year.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is aiming to pick up seats currently held by Republicans Michael Castle (DE), C.W. (Bill) Young (FL), Anh (Joseph) Cao (LA), Thaddeus McCotter (MI), and Jim Gerlach (PA). Democrats also believe that seats held by Republicans Michelle Bachmann (MN), Jean Schmidt (OH), and John Culberson (TX) are ripe for the picking. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is currently targeting seats held by Democrats Walter Minnick (ID), Frank Kratovil (MD), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Steve Driehaus (OH), Glenn Nye (VA), and Tom Perriello (VA). In addition to these seats, the NRCC plans to target several others held by freshman Democrats.
Politics 2010
The electoral and political environments on the Senate side suggest that we won’t see major changes in that chamber for a few election cycles. The House, however, is less predictable. As Democratic Representative Maxine Waters recently observed, “The chickens are coming home to roost.” The conservative Democrats who brought the party into the majority in 2006 have become a thorn in the liberal wing’s side. Not only have they put the President’s policy agenda in jeopardy, they’re at risk of losing seats for the party in 2010. Right now, there are 49 Democrats sitting in districts that John McCain won in the 2008 presidential race. Many of these members are vulnerable heading into 2010, and several will be challenged by liberals in the primaries. If Democrats lose 10-20 seats, they’ll likely still claim victory. But they’ll need to demonstrate that they’re willing to adjust their agenda to address voter concerns heading into 2012. If they lose more than 20 seats but still hold their majority, Nancy Pelosi’s task as speaker will be extremely challenging to say the least. On the flip side, a small loss for the Democrats would be a big loss for Minority Leader John Boehner. If Democrats lose fewer than 10 seats, Boehner could very well be ousted from his leadership post.
A final electoral trend to keep an eye on as the 2010 elections approach: the resurgence of moderate Republicans in Northeast. In states like Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York, moderate Republicans are polling well against their Democratic challengers. Like the Democrats in 2006 and 2008, Republicans are turning to candidates who “fit” the districts or states they’re competing in, and who can attract independent voters.
