Senator Eliot Shapleigh - El Paso, Texas

Gov. Rick Perry

An amendment to the stimulus package passed by the U.S. House on Wednesday would provide a back door for states to receive federal funds if a state’s governor declined to request the money.

This would mean that federal money could be pumped into Texas without the approval of Gov. Rick Perry, who has made clear he is no fan of either Washington or the stimulus package in recent weeks.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., was responsible for the amendment, which states that if a governor won’t take the money, “then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.” (Text of Sec. 1115 of HR1 attached below.)

For Texas this would mean a joint resolution of the House and Senate could bypass the governor’s grumblings over the stimulus package.

Clyburn added the provision after becoming increasingly concerned by the oppositional stance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford toward stimulus aid. Sanford has even suggested he may not take the money, which must be formally requested by states before a check can be cut. [Gannett News Service, Jan. 28, 2009] [McClatchy-Tribune News Service, Jan. 30, 2009]

Back in December, Sanford and Perry co-authored a Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing Congress for fostering a “bailout mentality.” [WSJ, Dec. 2, 2009]

A source close to the action in Washington told to NPT that Clyburn’s sole target was Sanford. Clyburn’s stature in the House as majority whip gave him the clout needed to steamroll the amendment through without the help of Texas Democrats. However, Texas is as likely to be effected by the provision as South Carolina.

In fact, Clyburn’s amendment has already found its way into Texas politics, having been the inspiration for a Texas House amendment during the House rules debate on Wednesday. During the debate state Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, successfully amended House rules in order to make any legislative request for federal funds, as authorized by Clyburn’s provision, easier.

“What we tried to do in the rules is set up a process so that we will be able to react regardless of what Congress does,” said Dunnam Friday. House rules now state that, “all matters related to federal economic stimulus legislation“ will be dealt with by the Appropriations committee,” rather than by multiple committees. [Bill Text]

“It puts the issue in the hands of one committee only,” said Dunnam. He said he believes this could speed up the production of any joint resolution, and thus the procurement of stimulus aid for Texas.

“It had been that only the Governor could request the fund … There was concern over that because our governor has expressed ridicule over the ‘bailout,’ as he calls it,” said Dunnam, who explained that his staff had raised concerns over the issue with the office of U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas.

“I thought it was irresponsible of us (Texas House) to be in a position where we were relying on one individual (Perry) for whether or not Texas would participate in the stimulus package,” said Dunnam.

On Wednesday afternoon, as the stimulus package was being debated in Washington and the House rules were on the floor in Austin, Dunnam heard from Edwards’ staff that the “the language had changed” in the stimulus bill, and that Perry could be effectively bypassed when it came to Texas getting federal money.

“I’m glad they fixed it,” said Dunnam.

Perry has been ratcheting up his rhetoric against Washington over the last few weeks, stirring up the Republican base ahead of a challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in next year’s gubernatorial primary. In Tuesday's State of the State speech, Perry mentioned used the term "Washington" as a negative several times, and hailed Texas as better off than other states “praying for Washington to bail them out.” [Speech]

"All across the country, states are hiking sales taxes, they’re slashing education spending, preparing to pay state employees with IOUs, and begging Washington, D.C. for a bailout,” said Perry on Tuesday. Along with the governor's criticism of the federal government, Perry’s staff has begun publicly deriding Hutchison as “Kay Bailout,” and the term “Washington” in that context also serves as code for “Hutchison.”

NPT made a request for comment through Perry's press office, but did not receive a reply.

“His speech was more about the Republican primary against Kay Bailey Hutchison than the reality of the work we have to do this session," said state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh reacting to Perry’s address on Tuesday. Indeed, Dunnam’s approach to U.S. Rep. Edwards seems to have been motivated by the same concern.

“That’s what’s going on. He (Perry) is trying to run to the right because he’s afraid of Kay Bailey Hutchison … (and) we might miss out on $15 billion in stimulus money,” Dunnam said.

But the Clyburn amendment to the federal stimulus package changes the game. If Perry doesn’t request the money, the Texas Legislature can.

“It will change the discussion whether or not Texas participates in the stimulus package. Because if it’s just the governor, the governor has extreme authority to basically let what appears as the Republican primary between him and Hutchison influence whether or not Texas is going to benefit form the stimulus package,” said Dunnam.

With all the talk in the Texas House stressing bi-partisanship, Clyburn’s amendments could throw a spanner in the works.

If Perry were to decline federal funding, the onus would shift to House Speaker Joe Straus, D-Alamo Heights, and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Both would be put in a squeeze between facilitating the legislature “expressing its will” and embarrassing fellow Republican Perry ahead of the 2010 primaries and elections.

Furthermore, because Clyburn’s amendment requires only a concurrent resolution from a state legislature, any request for federal funds in Texas would need only 76 representatives and 16 senators to be made.

These numbers seem reasonable to state Sen. Shapleigh.

“In the Senate, I think we would have 28 or 29 that would vote for federal money in their districts. In the House, I suspect 90 percent would vote the same way,” Shapleigh said.

“What that section (Sec. 1115 of HR1) is designed to do is to deter ideologues,” explained Shapleigh, pointing the finger at both Perry and conservative state lawmakers who would be uncomfortable bypassing the governor’s desk when it came to federal aid.

“What that handful of far right extremists (would) have to explain is why they don’t want that money in their districts,” said Shapleigh.

All that said, the stimulus package, with Clyburn’s amendment, must still make it through the U.S. Senate, where it is likely to get a hostile reception from conservative bruisers like U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

Indeed one Texas congressmen, like all Republican congressmen voting against the bill, has already accused the bill of being a “Trojan horse that liberals are using to ultimately turn America into France.” [Houston Chronicle, Jan. 28]

Cornyn, like most Republican U.S. senators, and perhaps as a sign of things to come next week, voted against the expansion of SCHIP Thursday, but decided not to filibuster. (Hutchison voted for the expansion.) Back in Austin, Dunnam was not keen to predict the future.

“We don’t know exactly what is going to come out,” said Dunnam, regarding the stimulus package. Nevertheless, the Waco representative believes his amendment to Texas House rules allows the Texas Legislature to “keep open all its options,” as decisions get made by Congress and the governor.

“Maybe I’m wrong about the governor but we shouldn’t be dependent on the whims of one individual,” said Dunnam of Texas’ participation in the stimulus package.

Indeed Perry has hinted that he may well take the money (though grudgingly).

State transportation officials have been lobbying for money, and speaking to the Dallas Morning News, Perry spokesperson Allison Castle said that, “The governor has been pretty clear that he thinks it is bad policy and does not support it," but that, “if Washington is going to be sending out taxpayer dollars, a large portion of which is Texas taxpayer dollars, we'll fight for our fair share." [Dallas Morning News, Jan. 30]