“This is not a hard ask,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said of the group’s push to increase domestic spending. | Andrew Harnik, file/AP Photo Congress House Dems cancel vote on budget plan amid internal revolt Pelosi was forced to pull the bill from the floor amid objections from both liberals and moderates.

House Democratic leaders on Tuesday abandoned plans to vote on a key budget measure this week in the face of sharp opposition from both progressives and moderates.

The revolt over legislation to set federal spending is a setback for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her deputies on the eve of their 100 day mark in the majority. And it darkens the outlook for how Washington will resolve a slew of ugly funding battles later this year.


Democrats decided to punt a vote on the budget bill after both corners of their caucus — the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the moderate Blue Dog Coalition — warned they had enough muscle to tank the bill on the floor if they didn’t get their way.

Leaders of the 90-member progressive caucus walked away from talks Tuesday elated, saying they'd proved their power within the House Democratic Caucus for the first time in the new majority.

“This is a big victory in that it became clear that without real, strong progressive inclusion into the process of a bill, we're not going to be able to get there," CPC co-Chairwoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) told reporters Tuesday. "We have to make sure our priorities are taken into account.”



House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who has been leading negotiations, said it wasn't the "ultimate defeat," adding that Democrats will still need to tackle the problem in the coming weeks to avoid massive spending cuts from a decade-old sequester law.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Yarmuth and other top Democrats did notch a small budget win on Tuesday, as the House agreed to take a procedural step that will pave the way for the rest of this year's spending process and establishes a ceiling of nearly $1.3 trillion for writing the fiscal 2020 spending bills.

But the failure to coalesce around a broader agreement — seen as a basic function of the majority — will punt bigger decisions on how Democrats want to handle the looming battle over budget caps.



Bipartisan talks on avoiding the sequester cuts got underway earlier on Tuesday. Pelosi spoke with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell around noon about how they can find a way to reach a broader agreement to give federal agencies a budget boost before the 11th hour.

Still, the Democrats’ stumble comes at an inopportune time for the caucus — one day before lawmakers head to their annual retreat to celebrate their first 100 days in power and strategize on their agenda going forward.

"It makes it harder," Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) said about heading to their retreat after halting the budget debate. "This is the hard part about being in the majority. I think we'll get there, but it's not easy. ... At the end of the day, we got to show we can govern.”

Senior Democratic aides were insistent they could have secured the votes if they needed to, but Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer decided to avoid unnecessary arm-twisting.

Problems with the bill emerged last week, when progressive caucus leaders warned Yarmuth that they didn't support his budget numbers.



This week, Jayapal and her co-chief, Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), said they were ready to deploy the full weight of their 90-member group to reject the legislation, which they said favors the Pentagon over domestic programs.

Pocan suggested that some of the blame could be pinned on Democratic leaders for failing to reach out earlier to the progressive caucus.

“I think if leadership had maybe talked to a broader spectrum of members to begin with and not just worry about the folks who vote wrong on [motions to recommit], they would have had a better outcome.”

Meanwhile, members of the moderate Blue Dog Coalition privately raised their own problems with the bill, which they said was far too expensive.

"The system is broken, and somebody has to be the adult in the room and try to get us back on track," Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), a co-chairwoman of the Blue Dog Coalition, told reporters Tuesday.

The focus has been largely on the progressives, with Jayapal and Pocan pushing their own amendment, which would have dramatically increased domestic spending to match the Pentagon’s budget. But that move, which cost an extra $66 billion over two years, would have lost dozens of Democratic fiscal hawks.

Democratic leaders had agreed to put that amendment up for a vote. But it would have been a big political gamble because the party's centrists had warned that they would oppose the additional money when government deficits are set to exceed $1 trillion this year.

The Blue Dogs and other fiscal hawks in the party argued that progressives should be the ones to help pass the bill because those votes won't hurt them back home. Many moderate, vulnerable incumbents, on the other hand, were already loath to vote for a bill that increases spending.

Democratic leaders made a last-ditch attempt to sell the budget in a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning, with House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey delivering some tough love to her colleagues.

If Democrats can’t pass a bill to set spending limits, the New York Democrat said, they shouldn’t be in the majority, according to multiple people in the room. Such a setback would come after the caucus is likely to skip passing a formal budget this year.

Hoyer acknowledged earlier on Tuesday that they could yank the bill. But he also appeared to downplay the significance of the Democrats’ opening bid.

“Unfortunately, the administration clearly is not very interested in coming to a responsible agreement on a cap,” Hoyer said.

“If we’re going to get an agreement, we need an agreement between the House, the Senate and the president,” the Maryland Democrat added. That’s the reality.”

Laura Barrón-López and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.