The Politics of Process Plague Senate Vets Bill

WASHINGTON, DC - NOVEMBER 21: Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) talks with reporters outside the Senate chamber in the U.S. Capitol November 21, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Senate voted 52-48 to invoke the so-called 'nuclear option', voting to change Senate rules on the controversial filibuster for most presidential nominations with a simple majority vote. 
National Journal
Michael Catalini And Stacy Kaper
Add to Briefcase
Michael Catalini and Stacy Kaper
Feb. 25, 2014, 4:18 p.m.

Le­gis­la­tion to help vet­er­ans of­ten wins bi­par­tis­an sup­port, but a rift between Sen­ate Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans over pro­cess — who gets to of­fer amend­ments and how many — is threat­en­ing an om­ni­bus bill mov­ing through the cham­ber.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans are emer­ging as skep­tics of a Demo­crat­ic bill sponsored by Vet­er­ans’ Af­fairs Com­mit­tee Chair­man Bernie Sanders of Ver­mont, ar­guing that an in­creas­ingly fa­mil­i­ar script that has killed oth­er bills may well re­peat it­self here.

Re­pub­lic­an law­makers de­scribe a pat­tern in which Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id brings Demo­crat­ic le­gis­la­tion to the floor and blocks the minor­ity from of­fer­ing amend­ments, and in re­sponse they block the meas­ure from ad­van­cing to a simple-ma­jor­ity vote. The pro­cess has thus far stalled an ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance.

“It’s pretty simple,” said Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Chuck Grass­ley of Iowa. “We don’t un­der­stand why the Sen­ate shouldn’t func­tion as it his­tor­ic­ally has func­tioned. The right of a single sen­at­or to of­fer amend­ments is pretty im­port­ant. It’s a mat­ter of prin­ciple as much as it is about any of the spe­cif­ic pieces of le­gis­la­tion.”

The Sen­ate voted Tues­day to pro­ceed to the Sanders bill, which would re­verse an un­pop­u­lar cut to vet­er­ans’ pen­sions that was en­acted as part of the budget deal, as well as ex­pand vet­er­ans’ edu­ca­tion and health care be­ne­fits.

Re­pub­lic­ans are wary of Sanders’s plan to ex­pand be­ne­fits, and they’re furi­ous over what they say is strong-arm­ing by Re­id.

“If Sen­at­or Re­id were will­ing to run a le­gis­lat­ive pro­cess, I think you can move bills,” said Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Mike Jo­hanns of Neb­raska, who sits on the Vet­er­ans’ Af­fairs Com­mit­tee. “It’s like this un­em­ploy­ment [le­gis­la­tion]. I al­ways thought the votes were there. I just nev­er could un­der­stand why he didn’t let the pro­cess go for­ward.”

Re­pub­lic­ans blame elec­tion-year polit­ics.

Grass­ley said Re­id may be lim­it­ing amend­ments to pro­tect vul­ner­able Demo­crats.

“This I can’t an­swer, it’s just a sup­pos­i­tion, but to what ex­tent does Sen­at­or Re­id not want the sen­ate to func­tion be­cause he wants to pro­tect his ma­jor­ity?” Grass­ley said.

For his part, Re­id has said that he will green-light GOP amend­ments that are re­lated to the vet­er­ans bill, but at the same time made it clear that he will draw a line bey­ond which Re­pub­lic­ans can­not cross. Ex­actly where that line is set re­mains to be seen.

“This doesn’t mean that we’ll go on forever,” Re­id said.

Though 99 sen­at­ors got on board for Tues­day’s vote to move the meas­ure a small step for­ward, it’s un­clear wheth­er that sup­port will con­tin­ue on fu­ture, more sub­stant­ive votes to pass the bill.

One of the Re­pub­lic­an amend­ments is a plan to re­place the meas­ure with an al­tern­at­ive from Sen. Richard Burr of North Car­o­lina, the Vet­er­ans’ Af­fairs pan­el’s top Re­pub­lic­an.

The GOP plan would change how to pay for the ex­pan­ded spend­ing, which un­der the Sanders bill re­lies on sav­ings from the draw­down of the wars in Ir­aq and Afgh­anistan. Re­pub­lic­ans say those sav­ings are “false,” ar­guing they don’t ac­tu­ally save tax­pay­ers money. In­stead, Re­pub­lic­ans want to pay for it by tar­get­ing a child tax cred­it used by un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

If Re­pub­lic­ans don’t get to vote on their amend­ments, and if its spend­ing off­set isn’t changed, they’re threat­en­ing to block the meas­ure — even if that po­s­i­tion leaves them at odds with most vet­er­ans groups.

“It would be very dif­fi­cult for people to vote against a vet­er­ans bill,” said Re­pub­lic­an Sen. James In­hofe of Ok­lahoma. “But if they do it with the [war-draw­down fund­ing] off­set there might be some of us who vote against it, and I might be one of them.”

Sen. John Mc­Cain took of­fense at the fact that Re­pub­lic­ans were be­ing blocked from amend­ing such a massive bill for such a vi­tal group. “I think I know as much about vet­er­ans as Mr. Sanders, with all due re­spect, yet I’m not al­lowed a single amend­ment to Mr. Sanders’s bill; that to me is an out­rage and an in­sult,” he said.

An­oth­er Re­pub­lic­an amend­ment would call for Ir­an sanc­tions, a sens­it­ive area di­vid­ing some Demo­crats and the White House, which wants to see its dip­lo­mat­ic ap­proach pro­ceed.

Burr said that he could not abide a Demo­crat­ic re­quest that only amend­ments per­tain­ing to vet­er­ans is­sues be offered.

“The chair made a plea that this be lim­ited to VA is­sues,” Burr said. “That might be pos­sible if the minor­ity had the op­por­tun­ity to amend le­gis­la­tion in this in­sti­tu­tion. It’s the only way we can get this to the floor be­cause we’re denied any oth­er at­tempt to do it.”

What We're Following See More »
Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
3 hours ago
White House Weighs in Against Non-Compete Contracts
4 hours ago

"The Obama administration on Tuesday called on U.S. states to ban agreements prohibiting many workers from moving to their employers’ rivals, saying it would lead to a more competitive labor market and faster wage growth. The administration said so-called non-compete agreements interfere with worker mobility and states should consider barring companies from requiring low-wage workers and other employees who are not privy to trade secrets or other special circumstances to sign them."

House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
5 hours ago

House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz plans to spend "years, come January, probing the record of a President Hillary Clinton." Chaffetz told the Washington Post: “It’s a target-rich environment. Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up. She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”

No Lobbying Clinton’s Transition Team
8 hours ago

Hillary Clinton's transition team has in place strict rules to limit the influence that lobbyists could have "in crafting the nominee’s policy agenda." The move makes it unlikely, at least for now, that Clinton would overturn Obama's executive order limiting the role that lobbyists play in government

Federal Government Employees Giving Money to Clinton
8 hours ago

Federal employees from 14 agencies have given nearly $2 million in campaign donations in the presidential race thus far, and 95 percent of the donations, totaling $1.9 million, have been to the Clinton campaign. Employees at the State Department, which Clinton lead for four years, has given 99 percent of its donations to the Democratic nominee.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.