House Rejects More War Funding

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Wall Street Journal
May 16, 2008
Pg. 3
Senate Approves Sweeping Farm Bill That Bush Opposes
By Sarah Lueck and Greg Hitt
WASHINGTON -- The House rejected $163 billion in funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the first time the House has voted against funding for the Iraq war -- as Republicans held back support as a protest against domestic-spending items Democrats added to the legislation.
Some antiwar Democrats applauded as 132 Republicans voted "present" and the funding failed on a 149-to-141 vote.
The unexpected turn of events showed the depth of partisan angst in the House, where even legislation both parties view as "must-pass" faces a bumpy path. Legislation that started as a war-funding bill is now headed to the Senate without any war funding at all.
The move was a blow to the legislative agenda of President Bush, who has urged Congress to quickly pass a war-funding bill free of additional spending items.
Mr. Bush saw another loss as the Senate passed, with a veto-proof majority, a farm bill that he opposes. It appears increasingly likely that the sweeping legislation will be enacted over his objections.
The House passed two other measures during the war debate, one placing restrictions on the Iraq war, including a timeline for troop withdrawal, and another expanding funding for veterans' education benefits by collecting a new surtax from wealthy taxpayers.
Democratic leaders planned the votes separately to allow their antiwar members to vote against funding operations in Iraq, while still passing a bill. But Republicans didn't vote for the war funding and then accused Democrats of loading up the legislation with spending items "on the backs" of troops.
"A troop funding bill should fund the troops. Period," said House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.
In return, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized Republicans who "refused to pay for a war they support, and by voting against [veterans' education], they refused to support our veterans when they come home." Ms. Pelosi voted against the war funding.
The expanded funding for veterans' education, amounting to about $52 billion over 10 years, passed 256 to 166, with 32 Republicans agreeing to the measure. It also included an extension in unemployment benefits and a delay in cost-cutting regulations for the Medicaid health program that were backed by President Bush.
Pentagon officials said the House vote would leave the Army largely out of money by the middle of next month if the war-funding bill isn't passed by Memorial Day. Spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Army's personnel accounts will run out of money with the June 15 pay cycle, while its operation and maintenance account will run dry in early July.
As a stop-gap measure, Pentagon officials are pushing lawmakers for permission to effectively loan the Army money from the Navy and Air Force budgets until the broader war-funding impasse is resolved. The loans would buy the Army a few more weeks of funding, officials said.
The Senate is expected to add funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations. But the debate isn't going to be easy. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a war-funding bill Thursday that adds billions more in domestic items. The Senate is unlikely to back restrictions on the Iraq war or the surtax.
The surtax would require about 500,000 taxpayers to pay 0.5% extra on the portion of their income above $1 million, in the case of couples, or $500,000 in the case of individuals.
The White House, in an official statement on the House bill, said Mr. Bush would veto legislation containing the surtax.
"I support it personally, but that doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere," said Sen. Richard Durbin, the Illinois Democrat and Majority Whip. "We just don't have many Republicans supporting paying for things."
Meanwhile, the Senate voted 81-15 to give final approval to a sweeping farm bill. With a price tag approaching $300 billion, the five-year bill would fund an array of government programs, promoting biofuels research and land conservation, and steering billions of dollars to nutrition assistance for the needy.
Mr. Bush and other critics complain that the measure preserves the government safety net, which protects farmers against big swings in the economy and weather disasters, despite high commodity prices.
"We're setting up a subsidy structure, the purpose of which is to basically make payments to farmers who are making a lot of money on products that are doing very well," warned Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican.
Supporters defended the legislation, contending critics don't appreciate what is required to maintain a stable food supply for the nation and ignore the high costs and uncertainty borne by farmers and ranchers.
--Yochi J. Dreazen contributed to this article.
 
Back
Top