This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-poised-to-narrowly-approve-101-trillion-spending-bill/2014/12/11/820d8974-8147-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
House poised to narrowly approve $1.01 trillion spending bill House faces close vote on $1.01 trillion spending bill
(35 minutes later)
A sweeping bill to fund most of the federal government, change campaign finance laws and make it harder for the District of Columbia to legalize marijuana faces a close vote Thursday, even as Congress plans to give itself more time to avert a government shutdown and complete unfinished business.A sweeping bill to fund most of the federal government, change campaign finance laws and make it harder for the District of Columbia to legalize marijuana faces a close vote Thursday, even as Congress plans to give itself more time to avert a government shutdown and complete unfinished business.
The White House said that President Obama supports the bill and would sign it, but it criticized lawmakers for relaxing some Wall Street regulations and making an expansive change to campaign finance laws.The White House said that President Obama supports the bill and would sign it, but it criticized lawmakers for relaxing some Wall Street regulations and making an expansive change to campaign finance laws.
The House is scheduled to vote on the $1.01 trillion package by early afternoon, but it barely survived a procedural vote at midday Thursday when all Democrats present and roughly a dozen Republicans voted against the rule setting up debate. After a delay of several minutes, the rule passed by just two votes. The House is scheduled to vote on the $1.01 trillion package at some point this afternoon, but it barely survived a procedural vote at midday Thursday when all Democrats present and roughly a dozen Republicans voted against the rule setting up debate. After a delay of several minutes, the rule passed by just two votes.
Plans to vote on the bill around 2 p.m. were pushed back as GOP and Democratic aides worked to ensure sufficient support. Government funding expires at midnight Thursday and the House is also scheduled to approve a short-term extension of current funding to give the Senate — with its arcane procedural rules — a few more days to work on the bill.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted the bill would pass with bipartisan support. Earlier Thursday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was more confident.House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) predicted the bill would pass with bipartisan support. Earlier Thursday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was more confident.
“We’re getting out of here today. You’re going to miss me,” he told reporters as he walked into Boehner’s office Thursday morning.“We’re getting out of here today. You’re going to miss me,” he told reporters as he walked into Boehner’s office Thursday morning.
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.), the incoming chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, predicted as he left the speaker’s suite that at least one-third of his group’s 170-plus members would vote no because the bill doesn’t do enough to punish President Obama for using his executive authority to change immigration policy. But complicating the vote tally was a rare break by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from the White House. In a floor speech, she blasted Obama and Republicans for backing the bill.
Flores predicted that the bill would narrowly pass but said he will likely reject it because “my constituents are telling me that they’re against it. I think that it would be hard to totally stop the president’s unlawful amnesty action, but I think we could try a little bit harder to fix it.” “I’m enormously disappointed that the White House feels that the only way they can get a bill is to go along with this. That would be the only reason I think they would say they would sign such a bill,” she said.
Government funding expires at midnight Thursday, so after voting on the spending bill, the House is scheduled to approve a short-term extension of current funding to give the Senate a few more days to work through its arcane procedural rules and vote on the bill. Pelosi warned that Democrats were “being blackmailed” by Republicans to pass the bill with just hours until a possible shutdown. Raising concerns about changes to Wall Street regulations, she warned that the bill would “privatize the gain and nationalize the risk.”
But House Democratic aides were sounding last-minute alarms about widespread opposition to the spending plan amid concerns over big changes to campaign spending laws and Wall Street regulations. A wave of Democratic “no” votes would be a victory for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a popular figure on the left, who used a Senate floor speech Wednesday to warn about a bill that she said reflected “the worst of government for the rich and powerful.” Among Republicans, support appeared to be building despite concerns that the legislation won’t go far enough in punishing Obama for using his executive authority to change immigration policy.
At a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday morning, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her team called for a wait-and-see approach and planned to make a final attempt to strip the bill of changes in campaign finance rules that include a repeal of parts of the “push-out” provision of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory rules and a rollback of critical limits on Wall Street. Rep. Bill Flores (R-Tex.), the incoming chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, predicted that at least one-third of his group’s 170-plus members would vote no. He said he would likely vote no because “my constituents are telling me that they’re against it. I think that it would be hard to totally stop the president’s unlawful amnesty action, but I think we could try a little bit harder to fix it.”
House Democratic aides have privately warned in recent days about widespread opposition to the spending plan amid concerns over big changes to campaign spending laws and Wall Street regulations. A wave of Democratic “no” votes would be a victory for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a popular figure on the left, who used a Senate floor speech Wednesday to warn about a bill that she said reflected “the worst of government for the rich and powerful.”
At a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday morning, Pelosi and her team called for a wait-and-see approach as they tried one more time to have Boehner strip the bill of changes in campaign finance rules that include a repeal of parts of the “push-out” provision of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory rules and a rollback of critical limits on Wall Street.
“Right now they’re just saying keep your powder dry,” Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said as he emerged from the meeting. He said that he doesn’t like the bill, “but I absolutely don’t like shutting down the government.”“Right now they’re just saying keep your powder dry,” Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) said as he emerged from the meeting. He said that he doesn’t like the bill, “but I absolutely don’t like shutting down the government.”
Republican aides said that Pelosi’s requests already had been rebuffed — and that 70 Democrats had already voted once before to relax the Wall Street regulations included in the spending bill.Republican aides said that Pelosi’s requests already had been rebuffed — and that 70 Democrats had already voted once before to relax the Wall Street regulations included in the spending bill.
The campaign finance and Wall Street provisions, “like the entire bill, were the result of a bipartisan, bicameral process,” Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said in an e-mail. “If Rep. Pelosi doesn’t think her negotiators did a good job, she should discuss it with them – but sour grapes doesn’t mean she gets to rewrite the deal after the fact.”The campaign finance and Wall Street provisions, “like the entire bill, were the result of a bipartisan, bicameral process,” Michael Steel, a Boehner spokesman, said in an e-mail. “If Rep. Pelosi doesn’t think her negotiators did a good job, she should discuss it with them – but sour grapes doesn’t mean she gets to rewrite the deal after the fact.”
In the Senate, members of both parties have expressed serious objections to the plan, raising the specter that some might use procedural delays to block or slow the legislation.In the Senate, members of both parties have expressed serious objections to the plan, raising the specter that some might use procedural delays to block or slow the legislation.
On Wednesday, Warren repeatedly declined to say whether she would block or slow the spending bill. Conservatives, including Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have also raised concerns but haven’t said what they might do to derail the bill.On Wednesday, Warren repeatedly declined to say whether she would block or slow the spending bill. Conservatives, including Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) have also raised concerns but haven’t said what they might do to derail the bill.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is traveling to Iowa on Monday as he mulls a 2016 presidential bid, said Thursday that he would vote against the bill. While it includes increased funding for veterans’ health care — one of Sanders’s top priorities — he called the changes in Wall Street regulations “totally absurd.”Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is traveling to Iowa on Monday as he mulls a 2016 presidential bid, said Thursday that he would vote against the bill. While it includes increased funding for veterans’ health care — one of Sanders’s top priorities — he called the changes in Wall Street regulations “totally absurd.”
“It’s more austerity for working people,” he said. “It’s a budget that does not reflect the needs of the working families of this country.”“It’s more austerity for working people,” he said. “It’s a budget that does not reflect the needs of the working families of this country.”
Paul Kane, Sean Sullivan and Aaron C. Davis contributed to this report.