US House rejects funding for Iraq, Afghanistan wars as Republicans sit out vote in protest
WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush's Iraq war funding request collapsed in the House Thursday as anti-war Democrats and Republicans unhappy about added domestic funding combined to kill — for now — $163 billion (€105 billion) to support U.S. troops overseas.
The unlikely coalition formed when Republicans expected to provide the winning margin for the Iraq and Afghanistan funding instead sat out the vote in protest.
The Republican revolt was a response to Democratic strong-arm tactics in advancing the must-pass measure, as well as their efforts to add money for the unemployed and an expansion of education benefits for soldiers.
The defeat of the Iraq funding measure came on a 149-141 tally. Nearly two-thirds of the House's Democrats voted against continuing to fund the war as 132 Republicans sat out the vote in protest.
Democrats then forced through a nonbinding plan seeking an exit from Iraq by December of next year. The 227-196 vote on the measure broke mostly along party lines.
Thirty-two Republicans joined Democrats on a 256-166 vote to sharply boost education benefits for Iraq-Afghanistan veterans under the GI Bill — despite an accompanying tax surcharge on the wealthy and small businesses — and voted to provide a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits.
The practical effect of the Republican protest is likely to be minimal. While it kills the war funding component of the bill for now, the Senate is sure to revive it next week.
The White House weighed in again Thursday with a promise to veto the bill over the non-war spending, the new tax surcharge and restrictions on Bush's ability to conduct the war in Iraq.
Republicans said the strategy by Democrats to load the war funding measure with non-war provisions like extending unemployment benefits unnecessarily delays getting funding to troops in the field.
In the House, each side accused the other of using the must-pass troop funding bill for political advantage.
"We're playing political games on the backs of our troops — you know it," said Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican.
"All this bill's going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games."
The Republican revolt came two days after the party suffered a devastating loss in a Mississippi special election that left Republicans saying big changes in party message are needed in order to connect with voters. Thursday's moves were not orchestrated by party leaders and whether they were politically savvy was not at all clear.
"With today's vote, the Republicans have shown that they are confused and are in disarray," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. "House Republicans refused to pay for a war they support, and by voting against the GI bill, they refused to support our veterans when they come home."
House action on the bill was the first act in a complicated legislative dance that promises to spill over into June, when the Pentagon will have to send out warnings of possible furloughs to civilian employees and contract workers.
Democrats engineered the three-vote minuet to allow anti-war liberals to vote against funding the Iraq war.
The add-ons for the unemployed and the new college benefits under the GI Bill represented the price demanded by Democrats for approving Bush's long-stalled request for additional war funding.
To pay for the add-ons and adhere to budget rules requiring new benefit programs not add to the deficit, the Democratic plan would impose a surtax on individuals with incomes above $500,000 (€323,000). Couples would pay the tax on income exceeding $1 million (€650,000).
Senators in both parties, however, were balking at the one-half of a percentage point increase in tax rates. At the same time, Republicans and business groups said the plan amounts to an increase in taxes on small businesses that pay taxes at the same rates as individuals.
The war spending portion would have provided $163 billion (€105 billion) for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next year, slightly less than Bush's request.
The House measure also includes money for foreign aid and military construction projects as well as flood protection around New Orleans and a variety of smaller items.
Bush also has threatened to veto any bill that ties his hands on Iraq. The House measure would require Bush to begin pulling out troops from Iraq within 30 days once the bill becomes law, with a nonbinding goal of a complete withdrawal of combat troops within 18 months. Senate Republicans are expected to block the provision.
Report: GOP senators pushing off from Bush
With the Republican Party sustaining unexpected losses in recent special congressional elections, and the popularity of both the president and the Iraq War waning, Republicans seem prepared to look ahead to the next administration rather than continue supporting Bush, The Hill reported Wednesday.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is preparing to take up the administration's request for a supplemental spending bill for Iraq. Bush has insisted he will veto the measure if Congress adds to the $169 billion funding request or includes domestic spending in the bill.
Republicans expect the measure may be the only spending bill passed before the November elections, and many GOP senators say they would support adding billions of dollars in domestic spending, the Capitol Hill newspaper said.
The measure could include a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Senate Republican leaders are not sure they have enough votes to sustain a filibuster of such a measure.
Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona told The Hill Republicans might resort to sustaining a veto of a withdrawal timetable, which requires fewer votes.
"Whatever we have to do to prevail, even if it is to sustain the president's veto, we'll do that," said Kyl.
© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
Senate panel approves Iraq war funding bill
| Posted: 05/15/08 07:22 PM [ET] | |
| The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping emergency wartime funding package that includes restrictions on President Bush’s Iraq policy and provides tens of billions for new domestic programs. The voice vote approval sets up a floor fight next week between the two parties over domestic priorities and the Iraq war on the eve of Congress’ one-week Memorial Day recess. |
The package includes three separate amendments: $169 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through part of next year; more than $25 billion in new domestic spending; and language that sets a goal for the president to transition troops out of a military role in Iraq by June 2009.
The three different amendments will give Democrats who oppose the war an opportunity to vote for withdrawing troops without jeopardizing funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate is expected to ultimately reject the war policy amendment, which also includes a ban on permanent military bases in Iraq and language to give troops longer lag time in between troop deployments.
The chamber is anticipated to approve the troop-funding provision, but the prospects for the amendment adding domestic spending remain unclear.
Through a procedural maneuver, the bill would land on Bush’s desk as one bill. But the package first must clear the Senate and House, which earlier Thursday rejected a provision to spend $162 billion on the wars.
Bush has vowed to veto any bill that exceeds $178 billion for the wars through the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and for part of fiscal year 2009. He has called on Congress to keep the bill free of domestic add-ons, but Democrats are daring him to veto the bill at a time when a growing number of Americans are concerned about the economy and the direction of the country.
Republicans say Democrats are putting troops at risk by loading up the supplemental, which Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) characterized as “horse-blank.”
“What hogwash. Let’s all have a big laugh,” he said before mockingly laughing out loud.
“By the end of 2008, the war in Iraq will have cost over $600 billion,” the 90-year-old Byrd said in a scathing 30-minute opening statement. “More than $600 billion dollars for every minute since our lord Jesus Christ was born. That’s a staggering figure.”
A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in pushing to beef up the domestic spending in the supplemental measure, recognizing that the must-pass bill remains one of the few pieces of legislation likely to become law before November’s elections.
Still, the committee added some controversial provisions that could cost Democrats some GOP support and votes from the conservative wing of their caucus.
For instance, Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.
The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.
But critics say that it amounts to amnesty for people who entered the country illegally, and warn that it could imperil support for the underlying bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat who voted against the Feinstein-Craig amendment, said it raises a “red flag.”
He said he would wait until he sees the final product before determining whether to support the bill.
Other immigration measures were added as well, including one by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sought a three-year extension on a returning worker provision under H-2B visas, which she said was necessary to save seasonal businesses like seafood companies. That amendment has the support of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).
“It could be the end of crab meat,” she warned if the amendment were to be rejected. It was added to the Iraq-funding portion of the bill.
By a 20-9 vote, the committee also approved an amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to increase low-income heating assistance by $1 billion.
The move prompted the ranking member of the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), to warn that a slew of amendments that were being added could lead to a White House veto.
“I think we are getting carried away here with the ease with which we are running up the bill,” Cochran said. “We’re turning this bill into a huge bill to force the administration to veto it.”
But Cochran and a number of other Republicans are strongly supportive of many other domestic spending items in the bill. Cochran, for instance, backs $10.4 billion for Gulf Coast recovery from the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A number of centrist Republicans and ones in tough races support a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, 11 Republicans are co-sponsoring a provision by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to expand educational benefits for veterans, many support a plan to delay seven Medicaid rules issued by the Bush administration and $400 million of the so-called Byrne grants for state and local law enforcement remains very popular with both parties.
Those provisions, as well as billions of dollars for military-construction projects, might be too tough politically for Republicans to vote against, Democrats hope. And in the committee markup, Republicans were not shy about adding more funding on the domestic side.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) won adoption of $50 million for an amendment to fund the Adam Walsh Act, a law aimed at tracking unregistered sex offenders. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) won adoption of a $100 million amendment to boost border security.
“I think what you saw today is a strong expression, bipartisan, from a number of people about our country addressing critical domestic issues,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, who is a member of Democratic leadership. “It’s now up to the full Senate to determine that.”
H R 2642 YEA-AND-NAY 15-May-2008 3:45 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Senate Amendment With Amendment No. 3
BILL TITLE: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
| Yeas | Nays | PRES | NV | |
| Democratic | 224 | 7 | 4 | |
| Republican | 32 | 159 | 8 | |
| Independent | ||||
| TOTALS | 256 | 166 | 12 |
| Abercrombie Ackerman Allen Altmire Andrews Arcuri Baca Baird Baldwin Barrow Becerra Berkley Berman Berry Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boswell Boucher Boyd (FL) Boyda (KS) Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Buyer Capito Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson Castle Castor Cazayoux Chandler Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Cramer Crowley Cuellar Cummings Davis (AL) Davis (CA) Davis (IL) Davis, Lincoln DeFazio Delahunt DeLauro Dent Dicks Dingell Doggett Doyle Edwards Ellison Emanuel Emerson Engel English (PA) Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Fortenberry Fossella Foster Frank (MA) Giffords Gilchrest Gonzalez Gordon Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez | Hall (NY) Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Hayes Herseth Sandlin Higgins Hill Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holden Holt Honda Hooley Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Johnson (GA) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick Kind King (NY) Kirk Klein (FL) Knollenberg Kucinich LaHood Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) LaTourette Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lipinski LoBiondo Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey Lynch Markey Marshall Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum (MN) McDermott McGovern McHugh McIntyre McNerney McNulty Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Melancon Michaud Miller (MI) Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy, Patrick Murphy, Tim Murtha Nadler Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar Obey Olver | Ortiz Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peterson (MN) Petri Platts Pomeroy Porter Price (NC) Rahall Ramstad Rangel Renzi Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shays Shea-Porter Sherman Shuler Sires Skelton Slaughter Smith (NJ) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Space Speier Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Tanner Tauscher Taylor Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Towns Tsongas Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walz (MN) Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch (VT) Wexler Whitfield (KY) Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Wynn Yarmuth Young (AK) |
| Aderholt Akin Alexander Bachmann Bachus Barrett (SC) Bartlett (MD) Barton (TX) Bean Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Boozman Boren Boustany Brady (TX) Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Calvert Camp (MI) Cannon Cantor Carter Chabot Coble Cole (OK) Conaway Cubin Culberson Davis (KY) Davis, David Davis, Tom Deal (GA) Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Donnelly Doolittle Drake Dreier Duncan Ehlers Ellsworth Everett Fallin Feeney Ferguson Flake | Forbes Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gingrey Gohmert Goode Goodlatte Granger Graves Hall (TX) Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Hobson Hoekstra Hunter Inglis (SC) Issa Johnson, Sam Jordan Keller King (IA) Kingston Kline (MN) Kuhl (NY) Lamborn Lampson Latham Latta Lewis (CA) Linder Lucas Lungren, Daniel E. Mahoney (FL) Manzullo Marchant Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul (TX) McCotter McCrery McHenry McKeon McMorris Rodgers Mica Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Moran (KS) Musgrave Neugebauer Nunes Paul | Pearce Pence Peterson (PA) Pickering Pitts Poe Price (GA) Pryce (OH) Putnam Radanovich Regula Rehberg Reichert Reynolds Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Roskam Royce Ryan (WI) Sali Saxton Scalise Schmidt Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (NE) Smith (TX) Souder Stearns Sullivan Tancredo Terry Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Walberg Walden (OR) Walsh (NY) Wamp Weldon (FL) Weller Westmoreland Wilson (NM) Wilson (SC) Wittman (VA) Wolf Young (FL) |
| Bono Mack Campbell (CA) Crenshaw DeGette | Gerlach Gillibrand Hulshof Lewis (KY) | Mack Maloney (NY) Myrick Rush |
No comments:
Post a Comment