Quote:
Originally Posted by mooby
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...967/amendments
No snide comments/etc. here - I really am curious and if you guys are willing to play nice I am legit interested in figuring out who is lying here. But I need help on this.
Because if this is the case and the Dems added 400 billion in bullshit mandatory non-military medical spending to a bill using the troops as cover - they should absolutely be called out on their bullshit right?
The link I posted above is a link to the bill, specifically to all 55 amendments made (it's not as bad as it seems, most of those amendments are described as "Text of Amendment as Submitted: S2836 Purpose displays after an amendment is proposed" which I assume is some clerical thing.
So we need to find the amendment where the Dems took 400 billion in discretionary spending (for something totally unrelated to military healthcare) and switched it to mandatory after June 16.
Why June 16th? Because on June 16th the Senate had a vote where the bill passed 84-14. So obviously the left made that amendment after the fact to try and sneak it through.
I'm being totally serious here guys - put aside your partisan bias and help me figure out who's lying here. No hearsay in this one - this is the official record from Congress. If it happened it has to be in there somewhere.
|
100% agree.
Here is what I think happened after doing what I can to find something other than talking heads' versions of what happened.
The bill was voted on in June - and passed. It wasn't unanimous. Sen. Toomey along with 13 other Republicans voted Nay. I can't find anything in particular regarding their reason(s) for voting Nay in June, but I don't think it's questionable to assume that they voted Nay in June for the same reason(s) they voted Nay on the cloture motion.
I cannot find anything that was "added" to the bill with regard to spending between June 16th and the cloture motion. However, there is/was definitely $400 billion reclassified as direct spending.
Current-Law Discretionary Spending Reclassified as Direct Spending
Estimated Authorization 0 25.4 29.6 34.0 38.8 43.5 48.5 53.6 58.9 64.3 127.8
396.6
Estimated Outlays 0 22.9 29.2 33.6 38.3 43.0 48.0 53.1 58.4 63.8 124.0
390.3
g. Some activities that would be funded through the new Cost of War Toxic Exposure Fund are similar to activities currently funded from other discretionary appropriations. As a result of section 805, CBO anticipates that some of those currently discretionary appropriations would be provided through the new mandatory appropriation instead, to the extent that costs for those similar activities exceed the amounts provided in 2021. As a result, this table shows a reduction in spending subject to appropriation under current law, and an offsetting increase in direct spending.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/202...te_version.pdf
You would have to talk to the individual Senators including Toomey to be sure, but my guess is Toomey and the other 13 didn't like the reclassification of spending in June - hence voted no. And then since that vote in June they were able to convince enough of their colleagues to side with them at the Cloture motion - so they can amend the bill to remove that mandatory or direct (unappropriated) spending.
It does appear that Sen Toomey submitted an amendment on 7/25:
https://www.congress.gov/congression...2522%255D%257D
However, this amendment was ordered to "lie on the table". Motion to table – A proposal to set aside any pending question. Used to dispose of a question the Chamber does not want to consider further. Agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled.