The Next Republican Reckoning

The debate over whether to use reconciliation to defund Planned Parenthood will force the GOP to decide what issue it cares about most.

WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 28: Anti-abortion activists hold a rally opposing federal funding for Planned Parenthood in front of the U.S. Capitol July 28, 2015 in Washington, DC.
National Journal
Daniel Newhauser and Sarah Mimms
Add to Briefcase
Daniel Newhauser and Sarah Mimms
Sept. 20, 2015, 8 p.m.

For Re­pub­lic­ans this month, one ques­tion has been un­avoid­able: What do we stand for?

The GOP’s fight to strip Planned Par­ent­hood of fed­er­al fund­ing has again brought to the fore the de­bate in the party about what is­sues should get first billing—those deal­ing with the eco­nomy and jobs, or those high­light­ing so­cial is­sues.

That ques­tion has emerged in its clearest form as lead­ers in both cham­bers now con­sider de­ploy­ing a little-used budget­ary tac­tic—re­con­cili­ation—that would al­low Re­pub­lic­ans to sidestep a Sen­ate Demo­crat­ic fili­buster and muscle a bill to Pres­id­ent Obama’s desk. If Re­pub­lic­ans have one chance to make a re­sound­ing state­ment about their pri­or­it­ies, what should it be?

The re­con­cili­ation pro­cess would al­low Re­pub­lic­ans, for likely the only time this year, to pass a purely con­ser­vat­ive bill through both cham­bers, a mis­sion state­ment of sorts for a ma­jor­ity that has struggled to define it­self amid con­ser­vat­ive in­fight­ing and tac­tic­al losses against in­tract­able Demo­crats in the Sen­ate.

Re­pub­lic­ans have tried hard to fo­cus their ma­jor­ity primar­ily on fisc­al or for­eign policy is­sues, while al­low­ing di­vis­ive so­cial is­sues their votes early but not of­ten. That strategy was upen­ded over the past few weeks as an­ti­abor­tion act­iv­ists pressed their lead­ers to pun­ish Planned Par­ent­hood after un­der­cov­er videos were re­leased show­ing rep­res­ent­at­ives from the group dis­cuss­ing the har­vest­ing of fetal tis­sue.

As a res­ult, con­ser­vat­ives such as Sen. Ted Cruz and the House Free­dom Caucus have been push­ing lead­er­ship to strip the group’s fund­ing in a must-pass con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion at the end of this month and dar­ing Obama to veto it.

To avoid a gov­ern­ment shut­down that tac­tic would al­most cer­tainly bring on, lead­ers have floated the idea of us­ing the re­con­cili­ation pro­cess to tar­get the group’s fed­er­al dol­lars in­stead. That has piqued the in­terest of some of the staunchest an­ti­abor­tion mem­bers.

“I be­lieve it’s the best strategy. … Why do we have fisc­al is­sues? Isn’t it to sus­tain life it­self?” Rep. Trent Franks said. “Re­cent rev­el­a­tions in these videos have called the en­tire coun­try to ask the ques­tion, ‘Who truly are we?’”

Lead­er­ship aides cau­tioned that no de­cision has been made as to how the new ma­jor­ity will use the re­con­cili­ation pro­cess and a fi­nal choice does not ap­pear to be im­min­ent. Still, the tac­tic could help to cor­ral votes from con­ser­vat­ive mem­bers both for the clean con­tinu­ing res­ol­u­tion lead­ers are now push­ing to avoid a fed­er­al shut­down in Oc­to­ber, and later this year, when Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell plans to bring ap­pro­pri­ations bills al­ter­ing se­quest­ra­tion spend­ing caps for both de­fense and nondefense to the floor.

Yet oth­ers, who had hoped to use the tac­tic to high­light fisc­al policy, dis­agree. Rep. Tom Mc­Clin­tock last week resigned from the House Free­dom Caucus over ob­jec­tions to their push for an abor­tion show­down in a spend­ing bill, and he said mak­ing a sim­il­ar state­ment through re­con­cili­ation would not be his pref­er­ence either.

“The re­con­cili­ation pro­cess was de­signed so that Con­gress can ef­fect­ively im­ple­ment its budget,” he said. “I be­lieve that re­con­cili­ation should be used for the sole pur­pose of bring­ing our spend­ing back on a course to­ward fisc­al solvency.”

Oth­er mem­bers have broached the idea of us­ing re­con­cili­ation to again try to re­peal Obama’s health care law. Mc­Con­nell has re­peatedly said that the Sen­ate would pur­sue that strategy, prom­ising Sen. Mike Lee in Ju­ly that the up­per cham­ber would use re­con­cili­ation to re­peal as much of the law as pos­sible. But Mc­Con­nell and oth­er Re­pub­lic­an lead­ers have left open the pos­sib­il­ity of coup­ling a re­peal and oth­er policy changes in­to the re­con­cili­ation pro­cess.

“We will fo­cus spe­cif­ic­ally on Obama­care, but oth­er areas may be in­cluded,” Sen. John Bar­rasso said earli­er this sum­mer.

A re­peal of the Af­ford­able Care Act would cer­tainly draw a veto from the pres­id­ent, show­ing the elect­or­ate a dis­tinc­tion between the two parties. But Franks said it’s a dis­tinc­tion that has already been well-defined, so Re­pub­lic­ans should move on.

“Let’s say we get an­oth­er vote on Obama­care and we get it to the pres­id­ent’s desk. He ve­toes it right?” Franks said.  “That shows he’s for Obama­care right? And we voted to re­peal it. That shows we’re against it. Is that news to the Amer­ic­an people?”

Still oth­ers, though a smal­ler minor­ity of mem­bers, have in­tim­ated that tax re­form would be the best is­sue to place on the pres­id­ent’s desk, at least in part be­cause he might sign such a bill. But Rep. Tom Reed, a mem­ber of the Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, said that any ele­ments of tax re­form that Obama sup­ports would likely also have enough Demo­crat­ic sup­port to pass through the Sen­ate any­way, mak­ing re­con­cili­ation less valu­able.

He said that be­fore the un­der­cov­er videos from Planned Par­ent­hood were re­leased he may have thought dif­fer­ently, but now the dy­nam­ic has changed.

“If I had my pref­er­ence, I would fo­cus on the fisc­al is­sues,” he said. “But now you’re deal­ing with the real­ity of the situ­ation at hand, and this is­sue is a very ser­i­ous is­sue. … It does war­rant po­ten­tially in­clu­sion in the re­con­cili­ation pack­age so that the pres­id­ent has to go on re­cord de­fend­ing the sale of baby parts.”

What We're Following See More »
POTENTIAL CONTEMPT CHARGE
Nadler: Goodlatte Could Subpoena Rosenstein
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee says Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is poised to subpoena the Justice Department for former FBI Director James Comey’s memos, which the agency so far has failed to produce. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., warned such a move puts Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in jeopardy of being placed in contempt of Congress and the special counsel investigation of being shut down prematurely."

Source:
NO NEW FUNDING INCLUDED
House Ag Committee Passes Farm Bill
4 days ago
THE DETAILS
"On a party-line vote, the House Agriculture Committee approved a five-year farm bill on Wednesday that tweaks the supports now in place—a promise of certainty, leaders said, during a period of low commodity prices and threats of a trade war with agriculture on the front line." The bill includes no new funding over the last farm bill.
Source:
WOULD ASSURE ANYONE PARDONED BY TRUMP CAN BE PROSECUTED BY STATE
Schneiderman Urges NY Lawmakers to Close “Double Jeopardy Loophole”
4 days ago
THE LATEST
INTRO’d LAST NIGHT
Ryan Tamps Down AUMF Talk
5 days ago
THE LATEST

Referring to the AUMF introduced by Sens. Tim Kaine and Bob Corker Monday evening, House Speaker Paul Ryan said Tuesday "he won’t allow any bill to come to the House floor that he thinks would restrict military commanders’ ability to fight." Ryan "defended the legality of U.S. military strikes last week against chemical weapons-related sites in Syria, saying President Trump had the authority to order them under the Constitution’s Article II commander-in-chief powers."

PROSECUTORS WILL GET FIRST LOOK
Judge Denies Requests by Cohen, Trump
6 days ago
THE LATEST

Attorneys for both President Trump and his attorney Michael Cohen lost a court challenge today, as they sought to suppress evidence gathered in a raid of Cohen's office and hotel room. "U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood denied the requests and ruled that prosecutors will get first access to the information, followed by Cohen’s defense team ten days later. Wood noted that she has not yet decided whether she will appoint a special master in the case at all."

Source:
×
×

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.

Login