Dead on arrival? Nope.

Twelve fiscal year 2018 appropriations bills were passed in the House of Representatives on September 14. Well, in truth, only one bill passed. But that one bill bundled together all 12 of the appropriations bills Congress must pass each year.
 
The 12-bill package now heads to the Senate, where many reporters and “experts” say it’s “dead on arrival.” I’ve seen the bill described that way in so many news articles that I almost started to believe it.
 
But, “dead on arrival” is misleading. It also undervalues the significance of the House clearing a complete slate of appropriations before the new fiscal year kicks in. The last year that happened was 2009.
 
I’ll explain why the “dead on arrival” characterization of the bill is misleading, but first I’ll acknowledge two points that lead some people to make that statement.
 
First, it’s true that the bill as currently written couldn’t pass the Senate. It’s a Republican bill with little Democratic support, and Senate Republicans would need the support of 8 Democrat senators to clear the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and circumvent opposition.
 
Second, it’s also true that the bill exceeds legal spending caps and, if enacted, it would trigger an across-the-board sequester, or automatic spending cuts, to military programs.
 
If those two things are true, the bill must be dead, right? Nope.
 
Part of the Normal Legislative Process
 
The bill isn’t dead because the House action is an important and necessary step in the process that will lead to final spending legislation.
 
By this I mean, it is part of regular order in which the House works its will, and the Senate responds.
 
The Senate never rubber stamps an appropriations bill sent from the House. There are often vast differences between the House and Senate positions, even when the two chambers are controlled by the same party. It makes no difference whether the House sends the Senate a 12-bill package or 12 individual appropriations bills.
 
The House’s action lays down a marker. It reflects what a majority of House members would like to see in the bill. The Senate will assert its views by amending the bill. Then the two sides will work out their differences, with neither side getting everything they want. This is Legislative Process 101.
 
By passing all the appropriations bills, the House places itself in a better negotiating position with the Senate. The House will enter negotiations with the backing of the majority of the body.
 
By bringing all appropriations before the House, all members had an opportunity to place their mark on the legislation. A bill that only gets through the committee process and is not brought to the House floor, which was the case for many appropriations bills in recent years, deprives most representatives of that opportunity.
 
What about the problem of the House bill exceeding the legal spending caps? This will be resolved as part of the process. The most likely outcome is an overall budget agreement this fall that increases spending limits. Both the House and Senate will adjust their spending levels to the new limits. The House’s higher defense levels may come down, and the Senate’s levels may go up. Nondefense spending levels will likely change as well.
 
Or, the process may lead to another outcome. Regardless of the outcome, the forthcoming steps in the legislative process mean that the House-passed appropriations bill is far from dead on arrival in the Senate. The provisions and funding levels in the House bill will have due influence over final decisions in the coming spending battles.