WASHINGTON — Democrats began pushing plans for providing paid family and medical leave, easing climate change and bolstering education through House committees Thursday as they battled Republicans and among themselves over President Joe Biden’s $3.5 trillion vision for reshaping federal priorities.

Five separate panels worked on their slices of the 10-year proposal, early steps in what looms as a fraught autumn for Democrats hoping to enact a remarkable range of major policy changes. They face not only solid GOP opposition but internal divisions among progressives and moderates in a Congress they control so narrowly that they can afford only three House defections, none in the Senate.

“We have a once-in-a-generation chance to make transformative, beneficial change,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., as his tax-writing panel debated its pivotal chunk of the voluminous legislation. “This is our moment to lay a new foundation of opportunity for the American people.”

Republicans cast the still-evolving measure as an economy killer that would raise taxes, cost jobs, worsen federal debt and make people increasingly reliant on government. In a signal of the broad political potency they believe the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan offers, they repeatedly conjured that image to belittle Democrats’ economic plans.

“Following the humiliating Afghanistan surrender, now President Biden is leading America on an economic surrender to China, Russia, Europe and the Middle East,” said the top Republican on Ways and Means, Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas.

In an early manifestation of Democratic unrest, one member of the Ways and Means panel said that for now, she planned to vote against that committee’s portion of the bill.

Moderate Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., complained that lawmakers still lacked information on how much it would cost and had not been shown key portions of it dealing with taxes and prescription drug prices. Murphy is co-chair of the House Blue Dog Coalition, whose members include some of Congress’ most conservative Democrats.

“I don’t know how much we’re spending, how much we’re raising, how we’re spending some of the money and how we’re raising any of the money,” Murphy told her colleagues.

Democrats have said they will pay for much of the overall bill by raising taxes on the rich and corporations. They’ve said no one earning under $400,000 annually would face higher levies.

By Thursday afternoon Neal had not released details of any revenue proposals, including the tax boosts or some tax cuts his party wants to use to help ease people’s costs for health care and other needs.

Also not released yet were Neal’s plans to let Medicare save money by negotiating prices they pay for prescription drugs, another way they hope to raise money for the bill’s priorities.

Moderate Democrats — mostly prominently Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — have said the bill’s proposed $3.5 trillion cost is too high. Congressional Democratic leaders have conceded that the price tag may have to fall to retain moderate votes, causing anger among progressives who want the package to spend as much as possible.

House and Senate Democrats also must still reach agreements on many issues, including key questions about overall spending and revenues.

The Ways and Means portion of the measure is to contain many of Biden’s top priorities. These include creation of up to 12 weeks per year of family and medical leave for all workers beginning in 2023. The benefit would pay the lowest-earning workers up to 85 percent of their wages, a percentage that would fall for higher earners.

Democrats on the committee batted down Republican amendments. One by Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., would have delayed the paid leave program from taking effect until six months after the Treasury Department would certify that the government had enough expertise to start it.

Separately, the House Education and Labor Committee was working on a proposed $761 billion in spending to create free pre-school and community college and increase funds for job training, nutrition programs and modernizing public school buildings.

The House Natural Resources Committee was working on $30 billion for addressing climate change and other environmental issues. This includes money to protect coastlines from rising seas and create Biden’s proposed Civilian Climate Corps, which would employ hundreds of thousands of people on environmental projects.

Other panels were working on provisions for small business and science programs.

Top Democrats want to quickly assemble the overall bill, which 13 House committees are crafting, by late September in hopes of moving it through the full House and Senate. That may well prove overly ambitious.

That speed is partly designed to satisfy moderates, whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has told can expect consideration of a separate $1 trillion infrastructure measure by month’s end. Moderates consider that public works bill their top priority, and leaders will need their backing to pass the larger, $3.5 trillion bill.

Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

(1) comment


Dumbest thing ever if democrats supposedly believe in human induced climate change and equitable treatment of all people. The easier they make it for people to have children and have more children the harder it will be to fight climate change. On the equity side, those people chose to have children, they are fulfilling personal wants not needs. That's fine if they want to have children but they should pay their fair share. It is inequitable to charge a greater tax for those with no children (and thus are placing a lower demand for government services and, ceteris paribus are placing less of a strain on the planet, other species and us even humans), than the governments tax those with children. Using the same logic why don't they charge those with no vehicles a greater tax than those who have and in particular drive those vehicles? I'll tell you why, because it is flat out wrong. At the very least those with children should have to pay the same in tax as those with no children. In reality, if the parents don't lower their carbon footprint before having children, they should be charged more in taxes. Maybe parents should be required to purchase insurance to provide food, clothing and shelter for their children should the parents not plan well enough to take care of them without public assistance. Frederick has some schools where greater than 50% are in the FARMs program. If I have to pay extra tax for other people's children, then I want a greater say in who can have children. I also want more to be done to hold the absentee parent when there are marital problems and one of the two people producing the children picks up and leaves. They are basically screwing those of us with no children and we aren't the ones having sex and producing children we can't afford.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!