Supplemental fights foreshadow appropriations battle to come

The raucous debate in the House during the past few days over the fiscal 2002 supplemental spending bill is likely just the start of a contentious appropriations season once Congress returns from the Memorial Day recess.

Besides returning to an unfinished supplemental, lawmakers also must contend with raising the debt limit and with the consequences of not having a budget resolution--all of which present significant obstacles to the Appropriations committees and the leadership of each chamber.

"It has always been set up to be a difficult year," noted Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash. Already, she has had to work out a deal included in the supplemental bill to fix how highway funds are determined. Now, as she begins writing the fiscal 2003 Transportation appropriations bill, Murray still faces having to up the ante on items such as homeland security--and even a possible Amtrak bailout.

"As soon as we have a number, I will work diligently to get a bill ... but [the House debate over the supplemental] makes me wonder whether the House members are willing to compromise," Murray said. "I hope they are."

Indeed, the biggest question facing appropriators in both chambers is the stark difference in what the two sides will use as their base mark to determine the allocations for the 13 spending bills. Without a concurrent budget resolution, each chamber likely will rely on its own "deeming resolution" to set a total dollar figure for 2003.

In the House, appropriators are looking to mark up their allocations with the figure of $749 billion, nearly $20 billion less than what Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Thursday he was likely to use.

The difference is that the Senate budget resolution does not set aside $10 billion in a defense contingency fund as the House did. Nor does it assume the $9 billion accounting change in President Bush's budget and the House resolution.

House appropriators groused at the House leadership's decision this week to go forward with the $749 billion figure in the deeming resolution attached to the House supplemental, arguing it would cause more problems than not.

"It's going to be really hard to pass our bills," said House VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman James Walsh, R-N.Y.

Appropriators pressed the House leadership to let them use the Senate figure of $768 billion to mark up its bills, but pressure from conservatives thwarted that idea.

The outcome, Walsh said, is that appropriators will have to pass bills on Republican votes alone--and eventually bills will get backed up because they cannot be sent to conference with their more expensive Senate counterparts.

With a midterm election approaching, pressure to finish and go home for the year could lead to the dreaded year-end omnibus scenario--which Walsh said could force lawmakers to accept a total even higher than $768 billion.

"When we get into the omnibus, it's going to get more expensive--far more expensive than the budget resolution--because the committee tends to lose control," said Walsh, recounting omnibus situations of years past.

Also of concern to House appropriators is protecting their own legislators' interest. While the White House has complained repeatedly about earmarking money in spending bills for lawmakers' projects, appropriators say the earmarking is a necessary evil, as Republicans maneuver to protect vulnerable lawmakers in the November elections.

"With leaner bills, you disadvantage yourself against Senate products," said a House Appropriations Committee staff member.

While the Senate will have an easier time marking up bills this summer, the concern is that without proper enforcement procedures, Senate bills could grow well above their initial allocations, throwing that chamber into chaos as well.

Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a member of the Appropriations Committee, said he would press in a Senate deeming resolution to institute some type of spending caps and set budget enforcement mechanisms.

"If we can do that, then a lot of things fall into place rather quickly," Gregg said.

But Byrd balked at some of Gregg's ideas during this week's Senate markup of the budget resolution, and his opposition will make it difficult for any sort of multiyear spending cap or broad new enforcement procedures.

Still, it may be to the appropriators' advantage to have some sort of budget enforcement--even if it is not as strict as Gregg and his allies might like. Without it, floor amendments to increase popular programs such as health and education spending could throw appropriations bills far over their initial allocations.

"It could be like the Oklahoma land rush," Gregg noted. "Who knows?"

Meanwhile, the endgame is likely to rest in the hands of the House and Senate leadership teams, who have not been on the best of terms lately. Still, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., sang a happy tune Thursday when asked about the upcoming budget wars between the House and the Senate.

The difference in the two numbers "is not that big a gap," Daschle said. "I think we can address that."