CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
Corrected May 18, 2012 – 9:14 a.m.
Obstacle Emerges on Violence Bill
By John Gramlich, CQ Staff
Legislation to renew domestic violence programs hit an unexpected roadblock Thursday after the House cited a constitutional breach by the Senate, touching off a showdown that threatens to derail legislation Congress has previously enacted with ease.
The House move blindsided many senators and upended conference negotiations just as they appeared ready to get off the ground on the reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. It could be weeks before negotiators are named because the House departs for a weeklong recess Friday and the Senate takes one a week later.
The constitutional problem centers on what House leaders cite as a revenue provision in the version the Senate passed with bipartisan support (
The Senate could get around the problem by seeking a conference on the narrower bill (
House Speaker
The complication triggers a new level of discord between the two chambers and raises the stakes in an already tense election year fight between the parties over the normally bipartisan domestic violence law.
Congress reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (PL 103-322) with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2000 and 2005, but this year’s effort has been marked by divisions over Democratic efforts to expand the law to include new domestic violence protections for immigrants, gays, lesbians and American Indians.
The offending language pertains to changes in fees associated with U visas that are issued to immigrant victims of domestic abuse.
Under the House’s long-standing interpretation of the Constitution, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel and other Republicans said, the Senate bill is effectively dead in the eyes of the House because the Senate’s revenue language did not originate in the House.
“There is a blue-slip issue with our bill, and if the House is going to blue-slip it, we would need another conferenceable bill, such as a revenue measure, from the House,” a Senate Democratic aide acknowledged.
The Senate could get around the problem if the House passed a revenue measure and sent it to the Senate, where leaders could use it as a vehicle in which to insert the language of the Senate-passed domestic violence bill and send that bill to conference with the House.
“It sounds complicated, but this is exactly what we did with the transportation bill a couple of months ago,” the Senate Democratic aide said. “[Speaker] Boehner is acting like his hands are tied, but just two months ago they found a way to get the conference.”
House Republican leaders advocated that the Senate go to conference with the House using its bill as the starting point, saying through aides that option is the constitutionally proper alternative.
Obstacle Emerges on Violence Bill
But Senate Democrats question whether House Republicans are motivated by something other than constitutional concerns. “This may be part of some Republican plan to try to jam us with their bill,” the aide said.
Either way, the development clearly caught the Senate by surprise.
Iowa Sen.
“If there’s a tinge of tax provisions, under the tradition of the House Ways and Means Committee, they will blue-slip it,” Grassley said. “I know that there’s no compromise on that position from their standpoint, but it’s got to be a very indirect element that was never, ever discussed.”
A Boehner aide, however, said it was “specious” for Senate Democrats — who championed the visa provisions that include the revenue language — to claim that they were surprised by the House’s constitutional concerns. The sponsors of the Senate measure “knew that there is a constitutional issue, but included it anyway,” the aide said, adding that “the Senate is engaged in partisan gamesmanship.”
Still, Senate and House aides are talking, according to the Democratic aide. “Our staffs are communicating,” he said.
Visa Language at Issue
The Senate and House versions of the Violence Against Women Act have an array of substantive policy differences on subjects such as immigration and American Indian sovereignty. Tax provisions, however, were not among any concerns previously voiced by Republicans.
The tax provision in question concerns U visas, which are made available to some immigrant victims of domestic abuse.
House Republican aides said the Senate’s proposed expansion of the U visa program will have revenue consequences because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, it would require additional benefits to be issued from a pair of federal trust funds, the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Trust Fund.
To pay for the extra benefits issued by those trust funds, the Senate measure imposes a $30 fee for immigrant visas — some of which would be deposited into the general fund, the aides said.
Republican aides said the visa fee is not intended to pay for a specific government service for the immigrant and the excess amount will be deposited in the general fund and based on that it was determined the provision raises revenue.
This is not the first time the House and Senate have run into trouble with visa fees contained in a Senate bill.
Obstacle Emerges on Violence Bill
A dispute over a 2010 border security spending measure (PL 111-230) forced the Senate to return from its August recess to clear a revised bill after the House “blue-slipped” the Senate version for a cited infringement of the House’s constitutional obligation to originate all revenue measures. The legislation funded increased border security spending through a steep increase in fees on two categories of worker visas.
Still Boehner said he was “eager” to work out a compromise with the Senate and send the legislation to the president’s desk for signature.
“This is an important issue for our country, and it needs to be resolved,” he said, adding that he has “people in mind” to name as conferees even though “we’re not at that point in the process yet.”
Richard E. Cohen and Niels Lesniewski contributed to this story.
First posted May 17, 2012 11:14 p.m.
Correction
Corrects to say the House passed its bill May 16.