|
Some Republican lawmakers want more military spending, while others
focus on keeping the budget deficit under control. To overcome these
differences, leaders will give lawmakers a choice of plans to vote
on in the hope that one will pass.
Beginning on Wednesday, the House of Representatives was expected to
begin voting on a range of differing budget blueprints, including
three from Republicans who now control both chambers of Congress.
These call for deep cuts to social safety net programs.
Whatever emerges from the Republicans' votes has little to no chance
of actually becoming law, but it will help Republican efforts to
show they can work together and govern.
The Senate also launched debate on its Republican-authored budget on
Tuesday, passing non-binding amendments to look for savings to aid
veterans and shield children and the disabled from cuts to the
Medicaid health care program for the poor.
Senate Republicans put President Barack Obama's budget plan to a
vote, but it was rejected 98-1. All but one Democrat voted no to
protest what they called a stunt.
Representative Steve Scalise, the third-ranking House Republican,
responsible for securing votes, said the party was "coming together"
to support a budget in the House.
Deficit hawks insist that "sequester" statutory spending caps be
maintained and that additional funding for off-budget war operations
be offset with alternate savings.
More than 70 House Republicans, however, want the Republican budget
to meet or exceed the overall defense request made by Democratic
President Barack Obama.
The floor strategy for the budget will give Republicans a chance to
vote for two versions of House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price's
plan. One would add $36 billion to an off-budget war account while
requiring an effort to find alternate savings. The other would add
$38 billion with no offsets.
Both versions propose to cut domestic spending by $5.5 trillion over
10 years, with deep cuts to social programs.
Representative Mo Brooks, a conservative Republican from Alabama,
said he would support the larger amount for war funding even without
offsets.
"It doesn't do any good to be financially responsible if you're
dead, so I'm going to vote for it to protect national security,"
Brooks said.
(Reporting by David Lawder; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Andre Grenon
and Cynthia Osterman)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
|
