WASHINGTON \u2014 The Senate cleared a six-bill, $468.7 billion spending measure Friday ahead of a midnight deadline to prevent a partial government shutdown for several agencies funded in the bill.<\/p>\n
The 75-22 vote sends the measure to the White House for President Joe Biden\u2019s signature. <\/p>\n
The package includes the fiscal 2024 Military-Construction-VA measure, which is the underlying vehicle, and the Agriculture, Commerce-Justice-Science, Energy-Water, Interior-Environment and Transportation-HUD bills.<\/p>\n
The measure would provide a $2.6 billion, or 0.6%, increase over the comparable enacted fiscal 2023 level, though the two parties dispute some of the funding assumptions made by each side.<\/p>\n
For instance, Democrats believe an extra $1.2 billion in Superfund tax receipts, available to be spent in fiscal 2024 for the first time, should count toward the EPA total \u2014 reducing the overall cut to that agency that Republicans have touted.<\/p>\n
That extra Superfund money, which doesn\u2019t show up in the bill\u2019s official cost estimate, brings the total package to $468.7 billion. Even then, Republicans can still plausibly say the bill would reduce nondefense spending, outside of veterans health care, for the first time in years. <\/p>\n
Most of the partisan policy provisions sought by House Republicans fell out in the end. But one big one \u2014 ending a decades-old Department of Veterans Affairs policy barring some beneficiaries from being able to own guns \u2014 remained in the end.<\/p>\n
Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., telegraphed in advance that he\u2019d vote against the package because of the inclusion of the gun-related VA policy rider, which led two House Democrats to oppose the package as well. The provision would overturn a 1993 law that prevents veterans deemed incompetent to manage their finances from purchasing guns and ammunition.<\/p>\n
\u201cI just can\u2019t, in good conscience, vote to add a new gun rider to the appropriations process,\u201d said Murphy, who has been one of Capitol Hill\u2019s most passionate gun control advocates since his home state was rocked by the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.<\/p>\n
The bill faced the most opposition from conservatives in both chambers, who blasted it for spending too much money.<\/p>\n
Conservatives have called out the measure for including more than 6,600 individual home-state earmarks totaling $12.7 billion. Eight other Senate Republicans signed onto a resolution that Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., introduced Thursday that expresses opposition to earmarks.<\/p>\n
\u201cPork-barrel spending sounds bad, and smells worse,\u201d Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said during debate Friday. \u201cPork-barrel spending is the original sin of Congress, that big government types can\u2019t rid themselves of, can\u2019t rinse themselves clean of.\u201d<\/p>\n
The bill hit a few process snags following Wednesday afternoon\u2019s House passage. Senate Republicans sought amendment votes, but Democrats would not agree to votes on three immigration-related amendments and one that would block the EPA\u2019s pending tailpipe emissions rule.<\/p>\n
Enough Republicans joined with Democrats to bring debate on the bill to a close in a 63-35 vote midday Friday, clearing the way toward eventual passage.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis first package is evidence that we can get things done, when everyone is focused on what can actually help folks back at home and what can actually pass in a divided government,\u201d Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., said during debate Friday.<\/p>\n
Before passage, Democrats relented and allowed a vote on one of the three immigration-related amendments in dispute earlier.<\/p>\n
The chamber voted to reject the amendment from Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., that would have barred the Census Bureau from counting noncitizens and undocumented immigrants when apportioning House seats and Electoral College votes. The vote was 45-51.<\/p>\n
A Scott motion to refer the bill to the Appropriations Committee with instructions to send it back to the floor without earmarks was rejected, 32-64.<\/p>\n
Other GOP amendments also went down to defeat, and the chamber was able to clear the bill before dinnertime.<\/p>\n
Appropriators are negotiating the second six-bill package, which is set to top $1.2 trillion in spending and feature the two largest bills, the Defense and Labor-HHS-Education measures. The other four bills in that package are the Financial Services, Legislative Branch, Homeland Security and State-Foreign Operations measures.<\/p>\n
That wrapup package is expected to be released in the next nine days, most likely March 17, ahead of the March 22 deadline for the second tranche of bills, sources familiar with the talks say. Murray said Thursday that while the parties are working together on the next package, \u201ca number of really hard decisions\u201d remain.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe just have to work through them one at a time, and to show, as we did last time to the House, we have the votes for this,\u201d she said. \u201cLet\u2019s just make these decisions, and let\u2019s get these votes done.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Homeland Security measure continues to be the most difficult for appropriators to work out, negotiators say.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re still working through a lot of pretty terrible Republican policy, but we\u2019re slowly making progress,\u201d Murphy, the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security appropriations panel, said earlier this week.<\/p>\n
One DHS-related issue that cropped up in recent days contributed to the daylong delay Friday in getting the first package through the Senate.<\/p>\n
Alaska\u2019s senators sought assurances that funding for a new polar icebreaker to navigate Arctic waters would be included in the final package, which includes U.S. Coast Guard accounts.<\/p>\n
Money to buy a commercially available icebreaker \u2014 needed because of the long lead time to procure newly-built icebreakers to better complete with Russia\u2019s fleet \u2014 was included in both chamber\u2019s initial versions of the DHS bill.<\/p>\n
But Alaska GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan learned recently that it could be on the chopping block in final negotiations as appropriators have to make tough funding decisions ahead of that bill\u2019s March 22 deadline. They complained of the same thing happening last year and warned colleagues not to remove the funding \u201cin the dark of night\u201d again.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this increasingly dangerous world, the United States\u2019 national security interests in the Arctic have never been more critical,\u201d Sullivan said in a statement. \u201cRussia has 55 ice breakers and they are building more. The United States has two and one is broken.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ultimately they didn\u2019t stand in the way of passage of the spending bill, which Murkowski praised on the floor while also expressing concern about the icebreaker funding issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were able to in a tough budget environment put together a bipartisan bill. It\u2019s a bipartisan bill that protects our land and people,\u201d said Murkowski, the top Republican on the Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee. \u201cIt enables infrastructure projects, provides clean and safe drinking water. It helps communities provide vital basic services that I think many take for granted.\u201d<\/p>\n
Murkowski leads all lawmakers with $363 million worth of earmarks in the package, CQ Roll Call found.<\/p>\n
The unusually late finale is coming nearly six months after the start of the fiscal year, and coincides with the rollout of Biden\u2019s budget for the new fiscal year that\u2019s due Monday. Under the terms of last year\u2019s debt limit suspension and spending caps law, fiscal 2025 appropriations are slated to rise just 1% above the topline totals agreed to for the current budget cycle.<\/p>\n
Some defense hawks and industry stakeholders are already raising concerns about the tight budget environment affecting the Pentagon next year. In an interview with CNBC this week, RTX Corp. CEO Greg Hayes called the expected 1% boost outlined in the budget \u201cjust a starting point.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe problem with a 1% increase is when you have 4% inflation, what you\u2019re talking about is a 3% decrease in defense spending,\u201d said Hayes, head of an aerospace and defense giant that derives nearly half its annual sales from the U.S. government, according to RTX financial reports. \u201cSo I\u2019m assuming that, you know, the president\u2019s budget will be met with some skepticism when it gets to the Hill.\u201d<\/p>\n
Without offsetting cuts within defense accounts or a change in the debt limit law, however, any increase above the $895.2 billion defense limit for fiscal 2025 would be subject to across-the-board cuts.<\/p>\n
On the nondefense side, there are also plenty of hurdles: an earlier side agreement to add an extra $69 billion in funding on top of the regular $710.7 billion cap was cut nearly in half in talks between Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., earlier this year.<\/p>\n
That means congressional leaders would need to come up with an extra $32 billion in offsets or other accounting maneuvers to maintain even that slim 1% boost to nondefense programs next year.<\/p>\n
_____<\/p>\n
(Staff writers Sandhya Raman, Herb Jackson, Ryan Kelly, David Lerman and Peter Cohn contributed to this report.)<\/p>\n
___<\/p>\n