Lawmakers in the House and Senate are vying for a broad deal that would eliminate the spending caps imposed under the 2011 Budget Control Act, known as the sequester.
It’s a move that is likely to cause a deep rift within the GOP, as conservative lawmakers have vowed to fight against removing the caps on spending growth.
And talk of lifting the cuts comes as both chambers are set to vote on spending blueprints that essentially keep those spending limits in place.
But many Republicans say eliminating the caps is necessary to pass 2016 spending legislation, because the caps will require deep cuts in programs deemed essential by constituents.
“I think in due course of time, we need a … deal to take away the sequestration,” House Appropriation Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said.
Republicans and Democrats are hoping for a deal that mirrors a 2013 agreement that lifted the sequester caps for two years. It was struck by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray, D-Wash., and then-House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis.
Rogers said new negotiations would involve leadership in both the House and Senate, as well as Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wy.,and Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., the current Senate and House Budget Committee chairs.
Senate Republican lawmakers tell the Washington Examiner they are also counting on new negotiations to eliminate the sequester, while Democrats are equally eager for Ryan/Murray repeat.
Congress may have no choice but to find a way to eliminate the sequester cuts, which were implemented with the intention of cutting $1 trillion in federal spending over a decade.
Brian Deese, senior adviser to President Obama, told reporters Friday at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast that the president will not sign into law any spending bill that keeps the domestic spending caps in place. Obama’s 2016 budget proposal eliminates the sequester caps and pays for it by raising taxes, which is a nonstarter with Republicans.
Budget hawks point to the nation’s staggering debt and projected continuing deficits — a problem that the 2011 sequester agreement has helped to address. Under sequestration, federal spending as a percentage of GDP has been shrinking since 2011, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office — the first time spending growth has come under control since the end of the 1990s.
With no deal immediately in sight, the caps will remain.
The House and Senate this week plan to vote on spending blueprints that essentially keep spending caps in place, with the exception of an additional $20 billion for defense spending.
Keeping the caps essentially intact will make it possible for Republicans to pass the budgets with solely GOP support, as Democrats have vowed to oppose the GOP blueprints because they to not eliminate the domestic spending caps.
While the budget plan represents a non-binding spending framework, House and Senate lawmakers must soon begin passing actual spending legislation for individual government agencies.
In past years, adhering to the spending caps made it impossible for Congress to pass spending legislation because lawmakers on both sides of the aisle refuse to vote for funding cuts.
Partly due to sequestration, Congress has funded the government with a series of “continuing resolutions,” also known as CRs. These resolutions fund agencies at prior-year levels, a hard pill for institutions that have long been accustomed to virtually guaranteed annual budget increases.
With Republicans in charge of both chambers, the GOP is aiming to avoid the continuing resolution route this year.
Republican leaders, Idaho Sen. Mike Simpson said, “are going to have to figure out what to do with sequestration.”
Simpson, the Republican chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of writing the energy and water spending bill, said it will be impossible to pass his spending bill with the sequester spending caps in place.
“Under sequestration, the way it currently exists, you can’t pass appropriations bills,” He said. “It ensures that what you’ve got is a CR for the rest of your life.”
