Budget negotiators on Tuesday night announced they’ve reached a two-year deal that sets spending for the current fiscal year at $1.012 trillion and would provide $63 billion in sequester relief — all without new tax revenue.
“I’m proud of this agreement,” said Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, one of the two principal negotiators, in a statement shortly before an evening news conference. “It reduces the deficit — without raising taxes. And it cuts spending in a smarter way. It’s a firm step in the right direction, and I ask all my colleagues in the House to support it.”
Sen. Patty Murray, who handled the negotiations for Democrats, said, “This agreement breaks through the recent dysfunction to prevent another government shutdown and roll back sequestration’s cuts to defense and domestic investments in a balanced way.”
The deal, being dubbed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, will still have to get the go-ahead of rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties. The House is set to adjourn at the end of the week, and Republicans there are expected to meet behind closed doors Wednesday morning, as their leaders eye a floor vote by Friday.
The proposed package would set overall discretionary spending annualized for the current fiscal year at $1.012 trillion. That’s about midway between the level of $1.058 trillion proposed in the Senate’s budget, and the House-proposed budget level of $967 billion.
The deal would bring fiscal 2015 spending to about $1.014 trillion. The plan does not deal with the debt ceiling, which is anticipated to be reached sometime after Feb. 7.
The agreement also would provide $63 billion in sequester relief over two years, split evenly between defense and nondefense programs. In fiscal 2014, defense discretionary spending would be set at $520.5 billion, and nondefense discretionary spending would be set at $491.8 billion.
In fiscal 2014, defense discretionary spending would be set at $520.5 billion, and nondefense discretionary spending would be set at $491.8 billion.
The sequester relief is described as being fully offset by savings elsewhere in the budget.
The agreement includes dozens of specific deficit-reduction provisions, with mandatory savings and non-tax revenue totaling roughly $85 billion, although details of how these savings would be realized were not immediately released. The agreement would reduce the deficit by between $20 billion and $23 billion.
Some conservatives have recently voiced opposition to swapping out sequester cuts for “user fees,” while liberals have criticized any deal that does not extend unemployment insurance.
A potential major sticking point for some lawmakers could be that one measure being used to help pay for added spending is increased premiums for pension plans backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
However, the package also does not include an extension of unemployment benefits, due to expire at the end of December — something Democrats have been championed.
Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Tuesday afternoon that he can’t say whether House Democrats will be on board.
“We’re still feeling our way through this,” he said. “Some of the components may be a hard sell for House Republicans. So, we need to find out where they are, and where we are.”
House Republicans have let it be known they have a contingency plan in place.
“Part of our conversation was on the short-term piece,” Rep. James Lankford, the Republican Policy chairman, said Tuesday afternoon. “If this [budget] deal doesn’t pass, we’ve got to have a short-term piece ready to get together and get out there.”
Correction: A previous version misstated the status of the pension provision.
What We're Following See More »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
Today in bad news for Donald Trump:
- Newsweek found that a company he controlled did business with Cuba under Fidel Castro "despite strict American trade bans that made such undertakings illegal, according to interviews with former Trump executives, internal company records and court filings." In 1998, he spent at least $68,000 there, which was funneled through a consluting company "to make it appear legal."
- The Los Angeles Times reports that at a golf club he owns in California, Trump ordered that unattractive female staff be fired and replaced with prettier women.