Boehner Pushes Last-Ditch Effort, But Conservatives Aren’t Sold

White House dismisses Republican offer that would add policy provisions to the Senate’s deal as deadline looms.

WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 15: Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) departs a press followiong a meeting of House Republicans at the U.S. Capitol October 15, 2013 in Washington, DC. The U.S. government shutdown is entering its fifteenth day as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives remain gridlocked on funding the federal government. 
National Journal
Tim Alberta Billy House
Oct. 15, 2013, 8:39 a.m.

House Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers on Tues­day morn­ing presen­ted their latest pro­pos­al to raise the debt ceil­ing and re­open the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, a last-ditch ef­fort from Speak­er John Boehner to pass something out of the House and avoid get­ting jammed by a Sen­ate deal that is already be­ing dis­missed by con­ser­vat­ives in the lower cham­ber.

But in a fa­mil­i­ar twist, Boehner’s pro­pos­al ““ which tacks sev­er­al minor policy pro­vi­sions onto the Sen­ate frame­work ““ may not sat­is­fy a suf­fi­cient num­ber of con­ser­vat­ives to pass when it comes up for a vote Tues­day night.

“We’re still talk­ing, and we’ll see,” said Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a lead­ing con­ser­vat­ive who has en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally sup­por­ted Boehner at every turn un­til now.

The plan out­lined by lead­er­ship at Tues­day’s closed-door GOP con­fer­ence meet­ing builds on the Sen­ate frame­work, which funds the gov­ern­ment through Jan. 15 and ex­tends the na­tion’s bor­row­ing lim­it through Feb. 7. In ad­di­tion, House Re­pub­lic­ans are ask­ing for a two-year delay of the med­ic­al device tax, and lan­guage that will ban gov­ern­ment health care sub­sidies for mem­bers of Con­gress as well as mem­bers of the pres­id­ent’s cab­in­et.

But that fi­nal pro­vi­sion seemed in­ad­equate to some con­ser­vat­ives, who have ar­gued for the sub­sidy ban to ex­tend to a broad­er swath of fed­er­al em­ploy­ees, in­clud­ing staffers on Cap­it­ol Hill. “It’s a mat­ter of provid­ing fair­ness for all Amer­ic­ans,” Rep. Tom Graves of Geor­gia said fol­low­ing the meet­ing.

As to the plan that had been out­lined, Graves said, “That’s a work­ing doc­u­ment. It’s not the fi­nal product.”

Boehner seemed to echo that sen­ti­ment in a post-meet­ing news con­fer­ence. “There are a lot of opin­ions about what dir­ec­tion to go.” Boehner said. “There have been no de­cisions about what ex­actly we will do.”

Yet, des­pite a lack of con­sensus with­in his con­fer­ence, Boehner ac­know­ledged there is an ur­gent need to fi­nal­ize lan­guage and move for­ward with a vote on Tues­day. “We’re talk­ing with our mem­bers on both sides of the aisle to try to find a way to move for­ward — today,” he said

Still, even as Boehner and his lead­er­ship team at­tempt to cobble to­geth­er a bill cap­able of win­ning con­ser­vat­ive sup­port and passing the lower cham­ber, Pres­id­ent Obama and Demo­crat­ic con­gres­sion­al lead­ers are prom­ising that it won’t go any­where.

“We felt blind­sided by the news from the House,” Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id said on the Sen­ate floor shortly after the House meet­ing ad­journed. “Let’s be clear: The House le­gis­la­tion will not pass the Sen­ate.”

Boehner’s of­fice re­acted swiftly to Re­id’s re­marks on the Sen­ate floor. “Is Sen­at­or Re­id so blinded by par­tis­an­ship that he is will­ing to risk de­fault on our debt to pro­tect a ‘pace­maker tax’ that 34 Sen­ate Demo­crats are on the re­cord op­pos­ing, and he him­self called ‘stu­pid’?” said Boehner spokes­per­son Mi­chael Steel.

Mean­while, the White House sched­uled a mid-af­ter­noon meet­ing with House Demo­crat­ic lead­ers to mo­bil­ize against the Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­al. With a mul­ti­tude of House Re­pub­lic­an de­fec­tions pos­sible at to­night’s vote, the White House wants to make sure that Minor­ity Lead­er Nancy Pelosi min­im­izes the num­ber of Demo­crats who could help Boehner pass his bill.

The House pro­pos­al, White House spokes­per­son Amy Brundage said, rep­res­ents “a par­tis­an at­tempt to ap­pease a small group of Tea Party Re­pub­lic­ans.”

The ma­jor­ity of those law­makers, however, are re­main­ing non­com­mit­tal un­til they see spe­cif­ics from the Rules Com­mit­tee, which is con­ven­ing Tues­day af­ter­noon to iron out the pre­cise lan­guage of the le­gis­la­tion.

Some Re­pub­lic­ans, however, have already made up their mind.

“I’m a ‘no,’” said Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, who, des­pite be­ing a long­time thorn in Boehner’s side, has largely fol­lowed lead­er­ship’s strategy in re­cent weeks. “But they’ll prob­ably get their 218” votes, Gohmert ad­ded.

Rep. Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, a lead­ing GOP mod­er­ate, praised Boehner’s pro­pos­al as a po­ten­tial swift path to a deal in time to meet Thursday’s dead­line for when the na­tion is ex­pec­ted to hit its bor­row­ing lim­its.

“I think it does move the ball for­ward,” Dent said. He de­scribed the plan as less a com­pet­ing meas­ure to one be­ing worked out by Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic and Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers ““ but rather, a plan that is quite sim­il­ar.

“It will set up what will be ob­vi­ously a re­con­cili­ation between what the House has on the table and what the Sen­ate has offered,” Dent said.

In­deed the plan presen­ted Tues­day morn­ing by Boehner to rank-and-file Re­pub­lic­ans be­hind closed doors is sim­il­ar in many ways to what is known about Sen­ate bi­par­tis­an plan. The Sen­ate meas­ure it­self ap­pears to be a re­flec­tion of much of what was floated as a com­prom­ise late last week and over the week­end by Sens. Susan Collins, Joe Manchin, and a group of about 10 oth­ers sen­at­ors.

But there are im­port­ant dif­fer­ences. In ad­di­tion to the med­ic­al device tax delay, the House bill would also elim­in­ate a pro­vi­sion gran­ted to uni­ons in the Sen­ate bill that would delay a tax on re­in­sur­ance that labor says would fall heav­ily on its mem­bers. The House plan also would have a pro­vi­sion re­quir­ing in­come veri­fic­a­tion for Obama­care sub­sidies, and would end the Treas­ury De­part­ment’s abil­ity to ex­haust “ex­traordin­ary meas­ures” when the debt lim­it is ap­proached, mean­ing the Feb. 7 debt ceil­ing date would be in­flex­ible.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×