[Marxism] 162 billion war funding defeated for now in House

[Fred Feldman]

War Funding Bill Stalls in House
131 Republicans Vote 'Present' in Protest of Pelosi Tactics

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 16, 2008; A03



An odd coalition of angry Republicans and antiwar Democrats yesterday
torpedoed a $162.5 billion proposal to continue funding for the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, leaving the House to pass a measure that demands troop
withdrawals, bans torture and expands education benefits for returning
veterans.

The surprise action left antiwar activists on and off Capitol Hill exultant,
Republicans gloating and Democratic leaders baffled. Recriminations from all
sides quickly followed.

House leaders had broken the war funding bill into three separate measures.
The first, to continue funding combat operations, needed Republican votes to
pass over the objection of antiwar Democrats. The second would impose strict
Iraq-related policy measures strongly opposed by President Bush, and the
third would fund domestic priorities, including a new G.I. Bill and levees
around New Orleans.

That legislative legerdemain became the plan's undoing. Rather than go
along, 131 House Republicans voted "present" on the war funding provision,
saying they were incensed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and a
few of her lieutenants had drafted the bill in secret, then expected them to
play along.

"It was a political scheme. We wanted to expose it, and we did," declared
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Democrats saw it differently. "Republicans had the choice -- fund the troops
or don't fund the troops. They voted present," said House Majority Leader
Steny H. Hoyer (Md.).

"You can't say something is the critical battle of our time and vote
present," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.).
"Explain that to the troops."

The strange conclusion to the day-long war debate may not help a Congress
mired in record-low approval ratings and a House GOP that is reeling from
internal dissension and three straight losses in special elections in
reliably Republican districts.

But the impact is likely to be short-lived. The Senate will take up its
version of the war funding bill next week; it is expected to restore the war
funds and strip out the policy prescriptions most disagreeable to the White
House.

The White House reiterated its veto threat of the overall package yesterday
morning, demanding a new version stripped of policy prescriptions and
domestic spending, including the bill's $52 billion expansion of veterans'
education benefits. The supplemental appropriations vote is the last major
clash on Iraq policy between Congress and Bush.

Had it become law, the House bill would have brought the total cost of the
war in Iraq to around $660 billion, according to the Congressional Research
Service, more expensive than any U.S. military effort except World War II.

As passed, the House bill would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin
within 30 days, with a goal of removing all combat forces by December 2009.
The Iraqi government would have to match U.S. reconstruction funding dollar
for dollar, and would be required to offer the U.S. military the same fuel
subsidies it provides its own citizens.

Troops would get more rest between combat deployments, and every branch of
government -- including the Central Intelligence Agency -- would have to
abide by the Army Field Manual's guidelines on interrogation, which bans
action that amount to torture. Those policy prescriptions passed the House
by 227 to 196, with a surprising eight Republican votes, including Reps.
Michael N. Castle (Del.), Christopher Shays (Conn.) and James T. Walsh
(N.Y.).

On the domestic side, unemployment compensation would be extended for 13
weeks. Regulations the Bush administration hoped to impose to restrict
access to the Medicaid program would be blocked. Funds would be provided for
international food aid, levees around New Orleans, federal prisons and the
2010 Census. And the G.I, Bill passed after World War II for an earlier
generation of veterans would be updated.

That domestic portion passed 256 to 166, with 32 Republicans voting yes.

The politically controversial expanded G.I. Bill was expected to give
momentum to the House measure. The provision, written by Sens. James Webb
(D-Va.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), would cover the costs of school at even
the most expensive state universities for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and
would encourage private universities to provide additional student aid for
them. The House bill would pay for the benefit with a surtax of half a
percentage point on income over $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for
couples.

The measure has attracted broad bipartisan support, but it is opposed by
Bush because of its cost, its tax increase and fears that its generosity
could entice service members to leave the military rather than reenlist at
the end of their tours. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican
nominee, has put forward a less generous alternative that would save its
richest benefits for service members doing multiple tours.

But McCain's efforts have run into bipartisan opposition -- from lawmakers,
veterans organizations and educators. Former homeland security secretary Tom
Ridge, a close McCain ally, came out for Webb's measure yesterday.

"I have tremendous regard for Senator McCain, but I can't figure out where
he is right now," said Dartmouth College President James Wright, a former
Marine who helped negotiate the Webb-Warner language. "It seems to me our
posture as a nation cannot be to say to servicemen and -women, 'We do not
value you unless you reenlist.' That wasn't the contract they signed."

The House actions were a dream come true for the antiwar movement.

"It is time now for Americans to be heard and for this Congress to move
forward with the safe redeployment of our troops," exulted Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) who called on the House to use the $162.5 billion in
war funds for domestic priorities.

"For the first time ever, the U.S. House has now taken decisive action to
bring this war to a close," declared Alan Charney, program director of the
antiwar group USAction.

When the Senate takes up the bill, its version will include war funding, but
prescriptions on troop withdrawals and torture will probably fall to a GOP
filibuster. Republicans have argued that any tax increase is unacceptable,
especially in a time of economic slowdown. Even Democratic leaders in the
Senate have said they will oppose the House's tax increase to pay for
veterans benefits.

More unclear is the future of the education benefits, as well as domestic
spending that Bush has vowed to veto but will garner considerable support in
both parties. The Senate also is expected to go along with House efforts to
force the Iraqi government to shoulder more of its reconstruction and
self-defense costs.