U.S. Senate passes budget deal, focus shifts to spending

WASHINGTON Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:01pm EST

Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) (L) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) walk into the Senate chamber to vote on the U.S. budget bill in Washington December 18, 2013.REUTERS/Gary Cameron

Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS) (L) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) walk into the Senate chamber to vote on the U.S. budget bill in Washington December 18, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Gary Cameron

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate passed a two-year budget deal on Wednesday to ease automatic spending cuts and reduce the risk of a government shutdown, but fights were already breaking out over how to implement the budget pact.

By a vote of 64-36, the Senate sent the measure to President Barack Obama to be signed into law, an achievement for a divided Congress that has failed to agree on a budget since 2009.

The deal, passed in the House of Representatives last week by an overwhelming margin, restores overall fiscal 2014 spending levels for government agencies to $1.012 trillion, trimming the across-the-board budget cuts that were set to begin next month by about $63 billion over two years.

Now, there will be a mad dash by the House and Senate Appropriations committees to cobble together a massive spending bill that implements the deal and carves up the funding pie among thousands of government programs from national parks to the military.

Without the new spending authority, the federal government on January 15 could partially shut down, as it did for 16 days last October.

Not surprisingly, one of fights ahead involves funding of President Barack Obama's healthcare law, according to Republican and Democratic aides in the House and Senate.

"It's one of many flashpoints," said a House Republican aide who asked not to be identified, adding, "But it's not insurmountable."

Republicans are warning that they will not tolerate any increase in funding for administering the troubled healthcare program.

Democrats hope to maintain or add small amounts of money for the program they say will provide insurance for millions of previously uninsured people.

As is the case with all spending bills in a deeply divided Congress, there are plenty of other disagreements besides the Obamacare funding level.

Among the most difficult will be money for the Internal Revenue Service, the nation's tax collector; funds for western wildfire fighting and for the Yucca Mountain, Nevada, nuclear waste repository.

Separate battles also could be waged over policy proposals that House Republican leaders are likely to attach to the funding bill.

These could include forcing the Obama administration to approve a controversial Keystone oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.

There also could be moves to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing carbon emissions regulations that the coal industry hates and to block federal money for building a California high-speed train.

Given all of the disagreements, one House Democratic aide familiar with the appropriations process that is under way warned: "Nobody should be getting ahead of themselves; it's not a given that we're out of the woods" in passing the bill that would carry out the budget deal and avoid a January 15 government shutdown.

The budget plan negotiated by Democratic Senator Patty Murray and Republican Representative Paul Ryan won overwhelming support from House Republicans, including some of the chamber's most conservative ones.

Murray said the deal "breaks through the partisanship and gridlock, and shows that Congress can function when Democrats and Republicans work together to make some compromises for the good of the country."

But congressional aides said there nonetheless are worries that some of those conservatives might balk at the prospect of voting for a $1 trillion spending bill that wraps a slew of controversial programs into one gigantic package.

"There was broad bipartisan support for the (budget) deal. There should be the same broad bipartisan vote for the package implementing that deal," said the House Democratic aide, adding, "This is a very open question."

The House Republican aide echoed those concerns.

(Editing by Fred Barbash, Cynthia Osterman and Vicki Allen)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (11)
Harry079 wrote:
“The money to offset the restored funds will come from a variety of sources, including increased security fees for airline passengers and pension-related cuts for federal employees and military retirees.”

LOL!

Yes they will screw the federal employees and military retirees. They will also make it much more expensive to fly for everyone.

But the majority of the money will come from continued borrowing by the Treasury to the tune of about $60 billion a month. That $60 billion does NOT include that Feds MBS and Bond buying program that they just reduced by $10 billion a month.

Dec 18, 2013 2:45pm EST  --  Report as abuse
24129225998 wrote:
What does the current budget deal really accomplish for our nation? Without doubt, it endangers the morale of our men and women in uniform and imperils military readiness. It does this with a cost-of-living reduction selectively targeted against military retirees of “working age.” Instead of asking for shared sacrifice across-the-board (like a cost-of-living reduction for everyone), we wrongfully promote the idea that military benefits and retirement is luxurious and extravagant. Before “shooting from the hip,” our Congress should educate itself on what a military member is sworn to do: “…to support and defend the Constitution of the United States…” And that many have lost their lives doing so! Instead of talking facts, I hear some of our Congressional Leaders speaking communistic “mumbo-jumbo” that advocates that government has the right to decide the “right age” for someone to retire. Imagine this: The very men and women who have carried the burden and sacrificed the most are now dishonored by a targeted cost-of-living reduction in their hard earned retirement. It sends a powerful message that our Representatives and Senators are not serious and cannot be counted on to maintain the good name and reputation of the United States. Every citizen who appreciates the freedoms that we have should be gravely concerned.

Dec 18, 2013 2:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:
Criminals systematically chipping away at Main Street on behalf of those who line their campaigns.

Dec 18, 2013 3:56pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

A tourist takes a plunge as she swims at Ngapali Beach, a popular tourist site, in the Thandwe township of the Rakhine state, October 6, 2013. Picture taken October 6, 2013. REUTERS/Soe Zeya Tun (MYANMAR - Tags: SOCIETY) - RTR3FOI0

Where do you want to go?

We look at when to take trips, budget considerations and the popularity of multigenerational family travel.   Video 

Recommended Newsletters

Reuters U.S. Top News
A quick-fix on the day's news published with Reuters videos and award-winning news photography and delivered at your choice of one of four times during the day.
Reuters Deals Today
The latest Reuters articles on M&A, IPOs, private equity, hedge funds and regulatory updates delivered to your inbox each day.
Reuters Technology Report
Your daily briefing on the latest tech developments from around the world from Reuters expert tech correspondents.