House GOP throws Iraq funding into chaos
By Mike Soraghan, Susan Crabtree and Jared Allen
TheHill.com [1]
Posted: 05/15/08 04:19 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-gop-throws-iraq-funding-into-chaos-2008-05-15.html [2]
House Republicans knocked the carefully choreographed Iraq war funding process into chaos Thursday when they declined to vote for $162.5 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The vote was a GOP protest against the tactics of Democrats, who added hard-to-veto domestic spending to the measure and bypassed the committee process. Instead of voting “yes” or “no” on the funding measure, 132 Republicans instead voted “present.”
Because of that, the measure failed by eight votes. In the final tally, 141 members voted yes, 149 voted no, 132 voted present and 12 did not vote.
House Republican leaders said they were seeking to demonstrate that Democrats could not pass the spending bill on their own.
“What you saw is certainly an aggressive, imaginative floor tactic,” said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.). “What you see is that a majority of the majority doesn’t support this spending bill for the troops.”
Puzzled Democrats said Republicans had committed an offense most often pinned on Democrats — failure to support the troops.
“There’s no money for the troops right now — no money for the troops,” said House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.). “And that’s their problem.”
Murtha said it was ironic that the Republicans — who have complained loudly that troop funding will run out in mid-June — blocked war funding.
But in the meantime Murtha, who voted for the bill, said Democrats were “coming up to me and congratulating me for ending the war.”
Two other measures did pass. One called for immediate withdrawal with a goal of removing all combat troops by December 2009. The other was a domestic spending package with money for expanded unemployment benefits and a new college tuition benefit for veterans.
That created the odd legislative scenario of a spending bill that places restrictions on how money can be spent for the war, but has no money for the war.
Surprised Democratic aides said the confusion can be straightened out in the Senate, where the bill goes next. The money could be added there and then the bill can be sent back to the House for a final vote. It is not clear whether Republicans would again block funding.
“They were for the war before they voted present,” quipped Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The Senate will decide what they want to do.”
Pelosi had tried to carefully craft a unique Iraq supplemental spending package in an attempt to pass it with a minimum of Democratic infighting. Rather than fighting for enough votes to pass a war funding bill that would pass the House and Senate and avoid a presidential veto, she cut the bill into three pieces.
The idea was to have the war funding piece pass with Republican votes, augmented by enough conservative Democratic votes to put it over a majority. Ardent war opponents in the Democratic caucus could vote their conscience without stopping the bill.
By voting “present” Republicans indicated they did not want to dance to Pelosi’s tune.
“They wanted to use us before they abused us,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters after the vote. “They wanted to use the troops before they abused the troops … by doing everything that they could to prevent them from succeeding and adding all of these domestic items to the bill.”
But the basic legislative meaning of those 132 “present” votes is that those members did not support funding that Republicans often term as “support for the troops.”
Putnam said Republicans will be insulated from attacks that they are not supporting the troops because of the party’s strong pro-military record. But aides said leaders know the plan could backfire. If Republican voters complain about lack of support for war funding over the weekend, GOP leaders likely will change tactics next week.
If they do not, House Republicans and Democrats could engage in a game of political chicken over the spending bill leading up to the Memorial Day recess.
Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a moderate who has been critical of the hard conservative tilt of the Republican leadership and who is retiring after this year, said the decision to vote present was spontaneous, and driven by fact that the GOP was shut out of process.
Asked if he was worried about how it would play out, he said, “I’m not worried. I’m retiring.”
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Democrats specifically gave Republicans an opportunity for a clean vote on the funding of the war. He accused the Republicans of panicking because of the losses they have suffered in special elections and because of worries about being continually tied to a war associated with President Bush.
“What they did just demonstrates what happens when panic sets in after a Mississippi loss,” Obey said. “They can’t get rid of George Bush fast enough.”
Pelosi voted against the war funding portion of the bill. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) voted for it. All told, 85 Democrats voted for it, 85 voted against it, and no Democrats voted “present.”
Among Republicans, 56 voted for the war funding and two voted “no.”
The White House had issued a veto threat earlier in the day, criticizing the unemployment insurance extension, the new veterans benefits and the “millionaire’s tax” that would pay for the tuition program.
But Democrats are spoiling for the veto fight. They think it will damage Republicans’ political chances in the fall if Bush vetoes legislation that pays for the war and helps veterans and the unemployed.
The free college tuition for veterans has been dubbed the “new GI Bill.” It would pay tuition for a veteran up to the highest in-state tuition in his or her state. To pay for it, Democrats included a surtax on income of more than $500,000 for individuals, or $1 million for married couples. But that tax is widely expected to be stripped out in the Senate.
© 2008 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.
Both Sides Foil War Supplemental
By Josh Rogin and Liriel Higa, Congressional Quarterly Staff
May 15, 2008 – 11:11 p.m.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002876924 [3]
The problematic war spending bill became even more so Thursday when a Senate panel larded its version of the bill with domestic spending and unrelated policy provisions.
And in a surprise move, House Republicans upended the plans of Democrats to move along the supplemental measure in the form of three amendments and send the bill to the Senate.
Instead of voting for the war funding, as the Democrats had expected, many Republicans voted “present,” forcing the Democrats to rely on their own majority to adopt the amendment.
But with many anti-war Democrats opposed to any further funding of the war, the amendment failed.
The House, however, adopted the other two amendments, which include policy prescriptions for the Iraq War and a domestic spending package consisting of extended unemployment benefits, an expanded veterans’ educational benefit, and a surtax on the very wealthy to offset the costs of the program.
Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up a competing version of the measure, adding billions of dollars in domestic spending unrelated to the war via nearly two dozen amendments.
The Senate will now have to reconcile the House version with its own committee’s language and muster some Republican support to get a final version through the chamber. By all measures, that will not be easy.
Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., expressed the frustration of many senators who now must deal with the supplemental measure under pressure from the military, which says it will be forced to start sending furlough notices to Pentagon workers if Congress does not disburse more money soon.
“The House can jam things through, as we all know,” Reid said. “But over here, we have to follow our rules, which are not the House rules.”
Reid said he was hopeful that Senate debate on the supplemental could begin May 19.
The House had planned to adopt three amendments to the unfinished fiscal 2008 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations bill (HR 2642): one to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for $162.5 billion, the second a catalog of war policy provisions and the third for the domestic spending.
But Republicans, led by the conservative Republican Study Committee, voted “present” on the war funding portion to protest the Democrats’ handling of the bill, which came to the floor without going through committee markup and under a closed rule.
The unexpected Republican move led to the amendment’s defeat by a vote of 141-149, with 132 voting “present.”
Both Sides Claim Victory in House
After the vote, Republicans and Democrats claimed victory.
“Today Republicans voted present on the troop funding bill to expose a cynical ploy by the Democrat majority to play politics with our troops,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.
“We won,” claimed House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., noting that most Democrats oppose any further funding of the war anyway.
Thursday’s floor antics are unlikely to have any practical effect, with the Senate expected to add the war funding.
The House adopted, 227-196, an amendment that included a Dec. 31, 2009, goal for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.
The third amendment, adopted 256-166, includes provisions to expand GI Bill educational benefits for veterans while offsetting the cost, to extend unemployment benefits and to suspend implementation of seven Bush administration Medicaid regulations.
Jim Nussle , director of the Office of Management and Budget, chastised the Democrats’ bill Thursday afternoon and promised the president would reject it.
“[Democrats] insisted on tax increases, higher spending, and tying the hands of our military commanders. Those are misplaced priorities, and the president will veto this bill,” Nussle said in a statement.
Senators Can’t Resist Funding
Over in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chairman Robert C. Byrd , D-W.Va., went ahead with his planned markup of a competing version of the supplemental bill, which adds billions to the House proposal.
Byrd defended his committee’s prerogative to weigh in on the measure and to add more funds for domestic priorities.
“The president claims that by adding money for America to this bill, we are holding money for the troops hostage. What hogwash!” Byrd exclaimed.
Unlike the House, the Senate committee did not attempt to stay within Bush’s aggregate request total of $183.8 billion. Its bill, as drafted, would provide $193 billion, about $9 billion more than the request, including $168.9 billion for the wars.
Also, despite Byrd’s pleas for restraint, Senate appropriators could not resist loading up their mark with more than 20 amendments containing all kinds of unrelated funding and policy language.
Most notably, the committee adopted, 20-9, an amendment by Jack Reed , D-R.I., that would add $1 billion for low-income housing energy assistance.
Other amendments adopted include a $300 million increase in aid to Jordan, an expansion of visas for immigrant agricultural workers, $50 million to track unregistered sex offenders, $100 million to fight drug crimes on the Southern border and a ban on the use of funds to pay contractors who avoid taxes by incorporating overseas.
Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the panel’s ranking Republican, wondered aloud whether the committee’s work would find its way into the final bill.
“I have little confidence that the recommendations being made today will even be brought before the Senate,” he said.
The Senate plans to hold three separate votes on the supplemental amendments, allowing lawmakers to vote for or against different parts of the package. Reid has said he would start with the House bill and then allow floor amendments, one of which would be the committee’s markup.
Fights Looming in Senate
One of the major fights on the Senate floor will be over Jim Webb ’s GI bill (S 22), which is included in both versions of the supplemental but is opposed by the Defense Department.
Administration officials complain that the Webb bill does not include language found in a competing bill (HR 2938) by Lindsey Graham , R-S.C., which allows veterans to transfer benefits to family members.
Webb, D-Va., said Thursday he was working to include transferability language into his bill to defuse administration criticisms.
Senators are also expected to strip out the surtax on millionaires that House leaders attached to the benefits package last week in order to appease the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition.
“I don’t think we need to do that for this bill,” said Webb. “It’s a cost of war, and nobody is proposing offsets for all the rest of the war money.”
Several Senate Democrats acknowledged Thursday that all of the war policy provisions and perhaps most of the domestic spending would have to be removed in order to advance the bill.
David Clarke, Chuck Conlon and Kathleen Hunter contributed to this story.
CQ © 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. [4]| 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500