|
Tricks used to pass tied budget bill { February 17 2006 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/politics/17spend.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/17/politics/17spend.html
February 17, 2006
House Republicans Reject Call to Study Budget Bill Disparities
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — House Republicans rejected a call on Thursday for an inquiry into the enactment of a major spending-cut bill that Democrats say is invalid, as a simmering partisan feud over Congressional procedure boiled over.
House members voted 219 to 187 along strict party lines to block a request by Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, for an ethics investigation into how the House and Senate ended up approving slightly different versions of legislation signed by President Bush on Feb. 8.
Democrats and others say the legislation, which is intended to save $39 billion over five years, is constitutionally flawed. They say Republican leaders were aware of the difference in the two versions but made no effort to fix it to avoid further votes on a measure that barely passed the House and required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President Dick Cheney in the Senate.
"This could be a small clerical error which they have turned into a huge constitutional issue because they don't want to level with the American people," Ms. Pelosi said.
She said she considered the evenly divided ethics committee, which has the duty of enforcing House rules, the proper panel to look into what she called a deliberate decision to send an improper bill to the White House.
The dispute stems from a last-minute concession made in December to round up votes for the bill. Republican leaders in the House and Senate agreed to restore Medicare payments for some personal medical equipment for up to 36 months while cutting off others at 13 months.
In producing the formal bill after the Senate vote, a Senate clerk changed both reimbursement periods to 36 months. The House then approved that bill. After the vote, a clerk than returned the language to the original 36 months and 13 months.
Republicans in the House and Senate acknowledged the error on the budget bill, but they said that Mr. Bush had signed the correct measure and that no additional Congressional action was necessary. They accused Democrats of politicizing a simple mistake.
"They are trying to stop our efforts to cut spending," said Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert. "This is the same old tactic."
But Democrats and some legal scholars assert that the measure signed by the president is flawed because the Constitution requires the House and Senate to pass identical bills.
Republicans, however, are relying on an 1892 Supreme Court opinion that minor procedural irregularities could be overlooked if the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate certify that the legislation is correct, as was done in this case.
The situation represents a potential embarrassment for Republicans. Should the legislation unravel, it would undo significant changes to several major health, education, welfare and agriculture programs.
Earlier this week, Jim Zeigler, a Mobile, Ala., lawyer and Republican activist, filed suit in federal court in Mobile, saying that the legislation should be thrown out.
"It is basic Constitutional Law 101," said Mr. Zeigler, who was unhappy with some Medicaid provisions of the bill. "The same bill must pass the House and the Senate and be signed by the president. Period."
Although Republicans rejected the ethics inquiry, one Republican lawmaker, Representative Jim Nussle of Iowa, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said Thursday that the Senate clerk responsible for the differences should resign or be fired.
Senate officials, who did not identify the clerk, said that she was still employed but that the matter was being reviewed.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
|
