May 14, 2009: The House Approves $96.7 Billion War Funding Bill

$97B war-funding bill passes House

By Molly K. Hooper / The Hill

Posted: 05/14/09 04:18 PM [ET]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-war-funding-bill-clears-hurdle-2009-05-14.html

The House approved a contentious war supplemental bill by 368-60 on Thursday afternoon.

The nearly $97 billion measure was opposed by anti-war Democrats and conservatives wary of the bill’s price tag. For very different reasons, some members of those factions voted against the rule that brings the bill to the floor.

But enough members of both parties opted to back the procedural motion earlier in the day advancing the bill on a 247-178 vote.

Democrats who voted against the rule were Reps. Bob Filner (Calif.), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Frank Kratovil (Md.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Lewis (Ga.), Jerry McNerney (Calif.) and Mike Michaud (Maine). Republicans who voted for the rule included Reps. Dean Heller (Nev.), Leonard Lance (N.J.), John McHugh (N.Y.), Todd Platts (Pa.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).

Even though the appropriations measure does not include money to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, it closely resembles what Obama sought in his request to Congress. Other than war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, the House bill seeks emergency funding for the pandemic flu, the U.S. Capitol Police, wildfires and nuclear non-proliferation initiatives.

A $91.3 billion supplemental funding measure was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday, but a contentious fight still looms over the future of the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

House Passes War Funds As 51 Democrats Dissent

By Perry Bacon Jr. ~ Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, May 15, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403480.html

The House passed a bill yesterday that would provide more than $96 billion in funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Sept. 30, as President Obama had requested, but a bloc of 51 House Democrats opposed it.

Democratic opponents are accusing Obama of the same charge they leveled against his predecessor: escalating a war without a clear exit strategy.

The bill passed 368 to 60, with 200 Democrats and all but nine Republicans supporting it.

Democratic opponents did not attack Obama by name, but some likened his increase of 21,000 troops and billions of dollars to win the war in Afghanistan to President George W. Bush’s efforts in Iraq.

“When George Bush was president, I was on this floor saying we need an exit strategy,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “The same applies with Afghanistan. I’m tired of wars with no deadlines, no exits and no ends.”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who also voted against the bill, said that “this bill simply amplifies and extends failed policies.”

The vote came the same day that another part of Obama’s security agenda — closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — drew criticism from his party. The Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that includes $50 million to close the prison, as Obama promised during the campaign.

But the measure bans Obama from using the money to bring any of the 241 detainees to the United States, a move that administration officials have suggested might be necessary to get other countries to accept prisoners. The measure also requires the administration present Congress with a detailed plan on closing the prison before the money can be used.

Senate Democratic leaders criticized Obama for not already presenting such a plan, as Republicans continue to highlight the issue and accuse the administration of putting Americans at risk with its proposal to bring potential terrorists to the United States.

Obama defended his strategy for Afghanistan in a meeting late last month with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of more than 70 liberal members, many of whom opposed the funding bill. But among most House Democrats indicated they want to give Obama’s strategy a chance to succeed.

“The questions that were not being asked are now being asked,” said Rep. Tom Perriello (D-Va.), who voted for the supplemental funding.

House Democratic leaders refused to back an effort by McGovern and other antiwar legislators that would require Obama to provide Congress a detailed exit strategy for Afghanistan by the end of the year.

Some Democratic senators, particularly Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), have also criticized Obama’s proposal, but the funding is expected to pass there, possibly as soon as next week. Republicans have said they might oppose increased funding for the International Monetary Fund, which has been inserted in the Senate version.

Some liberal activist groups, such as MoveOn.org, which sharply criticized Bush’s efforts to increase troops in Iraq two years ago, have said little about Obama’s troop increase in Afghanistan.

The failed effort to amend the House bill illustrated the ineffectiveness of some of the House’s most liberal members. While the caucus of conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs has effectively blocked some of Obama’s proposals, such as an assault weapons ban, liberal Democrats have struggled with two of their biggest priorities: establishing a commission to investigate alleged violations by the Bush administration; and greater reductions of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

McGovern said he remains concerned about Obama’s policy in Afghanistan but is not sure exactly what he and others could do.

“I like Barack Obama; I thank God he’s president; I think he will be a great president,” McGovern said. “But sometimes great presidents make mistakes.”

House votes $97 billion war funds, despite doubts

By ANDREW TAYLOR / The Associated Press

Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:00 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402842.html

WASHINGTON — Despite Democrats’ rising anxiety about Afghanistan, the House on Thursday easily passed a $96.7 billion measure filling President Barack Obama’s request for war spending and foreign aid efforts there and in Iraq.

Some 51 Democrats broke with Obama, who is sending thousands more troops into Afghanistan, but all but a handful of Republicans stood behind the president to produce a 368-60 tally. Republicans supported the measure even though majority Democrats added almost $12 billion to Obama’s $85 billion request.

The measure would boost total funding provided by Congress for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars above $900 billion.

Across Capitol Hill, a key Senate committee approved a companion $91.3 billion bill that sticks closely to Obama’s war request _ including $50 million for the Pentagon to begin the promised closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The issue of closing Guantanamo is addressed in the House measure as well _ not with funding but with a promise that detainees from the prison will not be released on U.S. soil. A new provision, however, anticipates some of the 241 detainees at Guantanamo will be transferred to the United States to stand trial or serve their sentences.

A separate conflict over the war-funding measure concerns whether it should provide a $108 billion U.S. contribution to the International Monetary Fund as part of an expanded $500 billion IMF loan fund, a cornerstone of last month’s Group of 20 nations summit in London to assist poor countries struggling through the global economic downturn.

Obama officially requested the IMF funding late Tuesday, and the request was immediately incorporated into the Senate version by Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. The IMF funds would cost U.S. taxpayers about $5 billion since the government is issued interest-bearing assets in return for the contribution.

House Republicans oppose adding the IMF funds to the war-funding measure, and their votes will be needed to pass the final House-Senate compromise bill, given the opposition of anti-war Democrats.

As for the military spending, during the Bush administration many Democrats stressed their opposition to the war in Iraq while supporting efforts against al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But an increasing number of party liberals are skeptical of success in Afghanistan.

Chief among them is Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., author of the House legislation as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But for now he’s giving Obama a chance to demonstrate greater progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“This is a bill that I have very little confidence in,” Obey said. “I think we have a responsibility to give a new president _ who did not get us into this mess _ the best possible opportunity to get out of it.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., is opposing the infusion of war funds. He’s not impressed with Obama’s plans on Afghanistan.

“Sometimes great presidents make mistakes, and sometimes great presidents make even great mistakes. I hope that doesn’t happen here,” McGovern said. “As the mission has grown bigger, the policy has grown even more vague.”

Both the House and Senate measures largely follow Obama’s military request for the wars. But the House version adds $11.8 billion, including almost $4 billion for new weapons and military equipment such as cargo planes, mine-resistant vehicles, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and Stryker armored vehicles. The measure also adds $2.2 billion to Obama’s request for foreign aid _ much of which appears to be designed to get around spending limits for 2010.

The $91.3 billion Senate measure includes Obama’s $1.5 billion emergency request to fight a potential flu pandemic, while the House would add about $500 million to the request _ even as the recent swine flu scare appears to be abating.

On Guantanamo, the Senate measure includes $50 million to begin closing the prison but directs that it can’t be used to transfer any of the detainees into the United States. The House bill, which does not include such money, sets a policy forbidding release of Guantanamo detainees within the United States. It would allow them to be shipped to the U.S. to stand trial or to serve their sentences.

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of its version of the spending bill.

Most of that money, about $73 billion, would go to the Defense Department to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the extra 21,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan.

The measure is $1.3 billion more than the president requested, much of which was absorbed by $489 million sought by Mississippi Republicans Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker to restore barrier islands along the Mississippi Gulf Coast and restore ecosystems such as salt marshes to protect the coast.

Despite the panel’s unanimous endorsement, several Republicans said they plan to try to amend the bill to strip out $50 million included in the measure to close Guantanamo.

“It is misguided to close a facility housing terrorists when there is no plan,” said Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.

The Declaration of Peace