Congress Extends Sequester to Pay for Vets Benefits

The measure awaits President Obama’s signature.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 21: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) questions Apple senior executives about the company's offshore profit shifting and tax avoidance in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill May 21, 2013 in Washington, DC. A Congressional report released yesterday said that Apple, America's most profitable technology company, used a complex system of international subsidiaries and tax avoidance efforts to shift at least $74 billion out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service between 2009 and 2012. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
National Journal
Stacy Kaper
Add to Briefcase
Stacy Kaper
Feb. 12, 2014, 10:46 a.m.

By a 95-3 vote, the Sen­ate on Wed­nes­day ap­proved a House-passed that would un­wind $6 bil­lion in cuts to vet­er­ans’ be­ne­fits from last year’s budget deal that proved to be a polit­ic­al fiasco for all in­volved.

The con­clu­sion of the con­gres­sion­al battle to un­wind the cuts cul­min­ates sev­er­al days of flip-flops from Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans. Law­makers ul­ti­mately con­cluded it was shrewder to put to rest a rising polit­ic­al vul­ner­ab­il­ity with vet­er­ans than con­tin­ue petty-look­ing squabbles over off­sets that are lost on the pub­lic at large. Demo­crat­ic Sen. Thomas Carp­er of Delaware, and Re­pub­lic­ans Sens. Dan Coats of In­di­ana and Jeff Flake of Ari­zona voted against the bill.

Flake said that he be­lieved that the cut in be­ne­fits was mod­est — far smal­ler than what was re­com­men­ded by the Simpson-Bowles de­fi­cit re­duc­tion plan. And in a speech on the Sen­ate floor earli­er Wed­nes­day, he said that he voted against last year’s budget deal be­cause the spend­ing cuts did not go far enough.

Flake said that a vote against restor­ing the COLA cuts is not tan­tamount to turn­ing against the troops.

“The mil­it­ary is at a cross­roads, fast grow­ing be­ne­fits are threat­en­ing to dis­place in­vest­ments in read­i­ness of our armed ser­vices,” he said. “So I would en­cour­age my col­leagues to take a hard look at the fisc­al mess we face be­fore we vote to roll back one of the few de­fi­cit re­duc­tion meas­ures that the pres­id­ent and Con­gress has agreed to.”

A spokes­wo­man for Coats said he voted against the bill be­cause of how the spend­ing would be off­set. Coats, the spokes­man said, did not trust that the Sen­ate would stick to the ad­di­tion­al se­quester cuts. Coats in­stead fa­vors a spend­ing off­set offered by New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an Kelly Ayotte, which would make it more dif­fi­cult to qual­i­fy for a child tax cred­it — par­tic­u­larly for un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

Carp­er’s of­fice did not im­me­di­ately ex­plain the reas­on for his “no” vote.

But with 95 Sen­at­ors vot­ing in fa­vor of the meas­ure, the takeaway is clear: Don’t mess with vets, es­pe­cially in an elec­tion year.

The le­gis­la­tion that now heads to Pres­id­ent Obama’s desk for his sig­na­ture, would pay for restor­ing a 1-per­cent­age-point ad­just­ment to cost-of-liv­ing in­creases in mil­it­ary re­tir­ees’ pen­sions by ex­tend­ing the man­dat­ory se­quester cuts an ad­di­tion­al year.

Sen­ate Demo­crats had spent much of Tues­day in­sist­ing it was im­per­at­ive to pass a “clean” bill without an off­set ASAP, ar­guing that vet­er­ans had already “paid in full” their debt to so­ci­ety, even though none of the off­sets be­ing dis­cussed would have touched oth­er vet­er­ans’ be­ne­fits or even come out of the De­fense De­part­ment.

They were push­ing a Sen­ate bill from em­battled Arkan­sas Demo­crat Mark Pry­or that would have un­wound the cuts without pay­ing for them.

But between the House’s un­deni­ably over­whelm­ing vote on its bill Tues­day — 326-90, in­clud­ing 120 Demo­crats — and the two parties’ in­ab­il­ity to agree on amend­ments to the Pry­or bill, Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic lead­er­ship ab­ruptly changed course Tues­day, schedul­ing a vote on the House bill.

A few hours ahead of the vote, Demo­crats ap­peared to be caught off-guard.

Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Com­mit­tee Chair­man Carl Lev­in said he didn’t know if he would sup­port the House pay-for and needed to re­view the de­tails, in­clud­ing how he had voted on it pre­vi­ously.

“I don’t know,” he said. “There’s a little un­cer­tainty in my mind as to which par­tic­u­lar ex­ten­sion this is.”

Lev­in said Demo­crats gen­er­ally still pre­ferred a bill without a pay-for and that his per­son­al pref­er­ence was one that would close off­shore tax havens.

“I think most Demo­crats want a clean bill. If our choice is a good pay-for”¦ I would clearly vote for that”¦. If it’s a pure COLA res­tor­a­tion, I’m all in fa­vor for that, but in terms of the oth­er op­tions, I just have to with­hold judg­ment un­til I know more about it.”

The House pay-for had got­ten mixed re­views from Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans on Tues­day, with many con­tinu­ing to push for a pro­pos­al from New Hamp­shire Re­pub­lic­an Kelly Ayotte to close the child tax cred­it to un­doc­u­mented im­mig­rants.

“I think se­quest­ra­tion was a ter­rible mis­take to start with,” said Ari­zona Re­pub­lic­an John Mc­Cain on Wed­nes­day.

As Demo­crats tested the wa­ters with Re­pub­lic­ans over the pay-for fight, it ap­peared last week that the GOP would balk at even de­bat­ing a bill that didn’t have a pay-for. But Re­pub­lic­ans re­versed course on Monday, join­ing with Demo­crats un­an­im­ously to take up the Pry­or bill, which was left in the dust by Wed­nes­day.

In the end, with a snowstorm threat push­ing up a loom­ing re­cess, law­makers gave up their pay-for fights and just wanted to check the box, claim vic­tory, and go home.

“My in­clin­a­tion is, I just want to solve this prob­lem,” said Maine in­de­pend­ent An­gus King on Wed­nes­day when he had joined in a Demo­crat­ic press con­fer­ence de­cry­ing at­tempts to pay for the le­gis­la­tion the pre­vi­ous day.

“And the House has now re­cessed, so if we do something dif­fer­ent, it gets delayed,” he said. “Let’s do it.”

What We're Following See More »
Clinton Foundation Staffers Steered Biz to Bill
3 hours ago

"Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton."

Chef Jose Andres Campaigns With Clinton
11 hours ago
House Investigators Already Sharpening Their Spears for Clinton
12 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.”

Clinton Super PAC Enters the House Fray
17 hours ago

Priorities USA, the super PAC aligned with the Clinton campaign, which has already gotten involved in two Senate races, is now expanding into House races. The group released a 30 second spot which serves to hit Donald Trump and Iowa Rep. Rod Blum, who is in a tough race to win re-election in Iowa's first congressional district. The super PAC's expansion into House and Senate races shows a high level of confidence in Clinton's standing against Trump.

House to Vote on Iran Sanctions Renewal in Lame Duck
17 hours ago

Republican House leaders are planning on taking up a vote to renew the Iran Sanctions Act as soon as the lame-duck session begins in mid-November. The law, which expires on Dec. 31, permits a host of sanctions against Iran's industries, defense, and government. The renewal will likely pass the House, but its status is unclear once it reaches the Senate, and a spokesman from the White House refused to say whether President Obama would sign it into law.


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.