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
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.
Republicans Pull Together Last-Minute Protest Vote on War Funding Bill
By Alan K. Ota, Congressional Quarterly Staff
May 15, 2008 – 11:22 p.m.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002876908
For weeks, Republican leaders were divided over whether to try to temporarily derail funding for the war in Iraq with a procedural gambit.
The strategy came together only an hour before the bells rang for the roll call Thursday, according to interviews with lawmakers and aides.
Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and members of a conservative faction, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), pressed for a dramatic demonstration to Democrats of just how dependent they are on Republican votes to keep money for the troops flowing.
According to aides, Minority Whip Roy Blunt , R-Mo., and Adam H. Putnam of Florida, chairman of the House Republican Conference, had reservations.
By contrast, aides said, Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, seemed to acquiesce — allowing the RSC to whip for their strategy but doing nothing to help round up the votes.
If it was going to happen, it was up to Pence and his allies to make it happen.
Boehner and Blunt took aisle seats in the back of the chamber (not their usual posts during important votes) and, side by side, quietly watched the action — looking like a couple of guys who had just eaten lemons.
RSC members have a history of not seeing eye to eye with appropriators; the former group opposes earmarks, while the other doles them out.
But on the subject of the war spending bill (HR 2642), those frequent antagonists were on the same page.
“They seized on the fact that appropriators were unhappy with how the bill had been put together, without participation by Republicans,” said one senior GOP aide. “RSC members have been venting all week.”
C.W. Bill Young , R-Fla., the ranking member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, was one of the first members to vote “present.” Each orange-yellow light indicating a vote of “present” seemed to embolden others to join in. Soon there were 132, more than enough to kill a funding amendment that lacked solid support from the majority party.
The top GOP appropriator, Jerry Lewis of California said Republicans would be willing to vote for a war-funding package but only if unrelated measures were removed. “It’s got to be a clean supplemental,” Lewis said.
The leaders were in a bit of a bind.
They’ve demonstrated, frequently, a willingness to use floor procedures to torment the Democrats and to punish them for a lack of bipartisanship. Boehner, in particular, also thought the Democrats might be more open to cutting deals after a harsh lesson on the clout Republicans still have.
But as a close ally of the White House, Blunt expressed concerns about the need to expedite passage of the war money, and Putnam also expressed reservations, aides said. And there was a danger of sending a muddy message, since any defeat for war funding would cheer liberal Democrats. Afterwards, Putnam issued a statement that said: “House Republicans refused to participate in the Democrat plan to use our troops as oxen to carry massive tax increases and unrelated spending across the President’s desk.”
As the RSC members, led by Pence and Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter , moved around the chamber, they encouraged colleagues to vote present by letting them know that Boehner didn’t mind. Their pitch, according to one Republican: “It’s been approved by John Boehner. But it’s a word-of-mouth campaign.”
Afterward, some liberals celebrated the outcome. “This is what I wanted all along,” said Jim McGovern , D-Mass.
Other lawmakers were simply stunned. “I’m not sure exactly what has just happened,” said Mike Ross , D-Ark. “I am shocked they would vote to deny funding for the troops while they are in harm’s way.”
Some Republicans were perplexed, too.
Lee Terry of Nebraska, a Republican who supported the funding amendment, said he didn’t go along with the “vote present” strategy because he wanted to cast a clear vote.
“I support funding for the troops, so I voted yes,” Terry said. “I think it’s kind of cheesy not to vote for it.”
CQ © 2007 All Rights Reserved | Congressional Quarterly Inc. 1255 22nd Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 | 202-419-8500