Bipartisan War Funding Plan Breaks With President’s Request
By Josh Rogin and David Clarke, CQ Staff
CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 7, 2008 – 1:44 p.m.
http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=15873 [1]
The emerging House supplemental spending bill contains military funding for fiscal 2008 and 2009 that diverges sharply from the administration’s request, according to the office of John P. Murtha , D-Pa.
The $96.6 billion military spending portion of the bill, crafted on a bipartisan basis by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is $3.4 billion below the president’s request. It would shift billions of dollars around within the overall total, beefing up funding for procurement of aircraft, healthcare for soldiers and veterans, and equipment for the National Guard and Reserves.
“We’re trying to look beyond Iraq,” Murtha said.
A “bridge fund” section, which would provide $65.9 billion for war-related military spending in fiscal 2009, was produced before the administration finally sent Congress details of its request May 2.
Murtha, who chairs the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, criticized the administration for making only a $70 billion “placeholder” aggregate request for fiscal 2009 in its February budget release, in violation of the 2007 national defense authorization act ( PL 109-364 ).
Murtha scoffed at Pentagon claims that if the war money isn’t delivered soon, the Army will be forced to stop paying soldiers.
“We know what the numbers are, we know the troops are going to get paid,” Murtha said.
Meanwhile, Democratic leaders on Wednesday still faced with opposition from within their party to domestic and veterans’ spending in the bill that would violate pay-as-you-go budget rules.
And Republicans were gumming up the House floor with procedural protests over the way the supplemental was developed, a process that skipped the normal Appropriations Committee markup. Their tactics slowed progress on a major housing package ( HR 3221 ) to a snail’s pace.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said he wasn’t sure the House would take up the war funding bill Thursday, blaming the Republican slowdown. “I don’t know whether we’re going to get to it, we’re going to do housing and we’re still embroiled here,” he said.
Three Amendments, One Bill
Both years’ worth of war funding will be considered in the first amendment to a leftover fiscal 2008 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill ( HR 2642) that Democratic leaders will resurrect to serve as the vehicle for the supplemental bill.
Two other amendments will contain Iraq war policy riders and a package of miscellaneous additional spending for purposes ranging from a major expansion of GI Bill education benefits for veterans to an extension of unemployment compensation.
Only the war funding is likely to enjoy a fairly easy path to adoption in the House and avoid problems in the Senate.
The fiscal 2008 section of the military funding section would shift funds from the administration request and add:
• $3.6 billion for 15 C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifters;
• $2.5 billion for 34 C-130s.
• $573 million for the defense healthcare program;
• $793 million for military medical treatment facilities;
• $68 million to help the Army implement the Wounded Warrior program;
• $750 million for Guard and Reserve equipment.
• $65.4 million to help returning guard and reserve members reintegrate into civilian life;
• $3.5 billion to address the increased cost of fuel; and
• $102 million to equip a new brigade of soldiers with the Land Warrior equipment, a package of soldier-mounted networking and communications equipment.
The Land Warrior program, which the Army tried to cancel last year despite over a decade of research and billions of dollars invested, has been propped up by Congress with piecemeal appropriations.
The Army’s 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment out Fort Lewis, Wash., was deployed to Iraq last summer with the equipment.
Money for advanced procurement of F-22 Raptor fighter jets did not make it into the bill because of Senate opposition, Murtha said. That production line is slated to close at the end of fiscal 2009 barring any new funding streams.
Blue Dogs Remain Restive
Democratic leaders are facing stiff opposition to their three-part bill from some members of their own party — the 47-member Blue Dog coalition — that could scuttle plans to bring the measure to the floor this week.
The Blue Dogs are upset that the cost of enhanced education benefits for veterans would not be offset. The popular benefits amount to new mandatory spending, but because they are attached to an emergency appropriations bill the anti-deficit “pay-as-you-go” budget rule does not apply to them.
Blue Dogs have made the PAYGO rule, which requires new mandatory spending or tax cuts to be fully offset, their signature issue. They argue attaching the benefit to an emergency spending bill violates the PAYGO principle that Democrats have heralded as proof that they govern in a fiscally responsible manner.
“I’ve never seen the Blue Dogs this unified, this upset,” said Rep. Jim Cooper , D-Tenn.
House Republicans said Democrats were disguising the true cost of the legislation because the more generous GI Bill benefits would continue in effect long after fiscal 2009 has come to and end.
Details of the GI Bill provision have not been released but it is based on a bill ( S 22 ) introduced by Sen. Jim Webb , D-Va., that would provide more funding to help veterans pay college costs.
That measure would give veterans educational benefits equal to the highest tuition rates of a public college or university in their state, as well as a monthly housing stipend determined by geographical area.
Webb’s office said that preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show the new benefit could cost between $2.5 billion to $4 billion annually. An official cost estimate has not been released.
House Democrats plan to bring the legislation to the floor under an unusual procedure that will allow separate votes on the three sections of the supplemental — war funding, restrictions on war policy and miscellaneous funding such as the GI Bill expansion.
The rule for consideration of the legislation would combine the three amendments into a single package upon adoption and send the final bill to the Senate.
Rep. Allen Boyd , D-Fla., a Blue Dog leader, said it is possible many Blue Dogs would vote against the rule, which no Republicans are expected to support. If the rule is not adopted, the carefully crafted plan for moving the overall package would collapse.
Blue Dogs met Tuesday to discuss the supplemental. Boyd said the group did not take a formal position on how members should vote, but he said they have warned leadership about the unhappiness expressed by members of the group.
“We’ve had conversations with the majority leader and he asked ‘where are we,’ and we’ve tried to tell him that we don’t think you have much support at all among the Blue Dog group for doing it this way,” Boyd said.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Wednesday she does not think pay-as-you-go rules should apply to the expanded GI Bill benefits for veterans. “We are going to spend nearly $200 billion on the war in Iraq, and it’s not paid for. So I think it’s OK for us not to pay for the education of our troops when they come home,’’ she said.
But she added, “I support pay-go’’ in general. She even said, as she has before, that she’d like to see the requirement become law, rather than merely a rule.
Meanwhile, House Republicans continued to voice their displeasure that Democrats do not plan to hold a committee markup of the bill. To protest, they have been forcing repeated votes on motions to adjourn.
“We’re going to continue to give Democrats the chance to do the right thing,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.
The president stuck to his veto threat against the bill after meeting with House Republicans Wednesday morning.
“I told the members I support $108 billion supplemental spending without any strings, and that we’re going to work towards that goal,” Bush said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Ky., signaled that GOP protests may spill over to his chamber.
McConnell said that the “process has been extraordinarily flawed,” giving Republicans in both chambers no real opportunity to contribute to the bill.
“ It has the tendency to unify the minority in procedure,” he warned.
Edward Epstein and Catharine Richert contributed to this story. Source: CQ Today Online News Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill. © 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.