House Rejects War Funding, Tossing That Job to Senate

Ultimately, GOP leaders were concerned that it would be difficult to execute the strategy effectively and did not agree to implement it, said the aide. But when they got to the floor, yellow lights representing “present” votes were going up, with RSC members and appropriators leading the charge to vote present. Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman C. W. Bill Young, R-Fla., was one of the earliest to vote present. Vietnam prisoner of war Sam Johnson , R-Texas, was one of the last to vote “present,” giving his colleagues additional political cover, although Johnson said that his late vote was because he was at a Ways and Means meeting.

GOP aides said party leaders went along with the strategy devised by Pence and other RSC members and voted present on the floor..

Earlier, the House adopted the rule (H Res 1197) to consider the supplemental along mostly party lines, 221-200. Eight Democrats voted against the modified closed rule, which did not allow for any amendments beyond the three comprising the substance of the bill.

Circumventing Markup

The House used the Senate-passed fiscal 2008 Military Construction-VA bill as the vehicle instead of a new bill, which allowed them to tightly control the procedure for considering the bill by preventing a motion to recommit. That funding for the current year was included in an omnibus funding bill enacted in December (PL 110-161).

The ranking Republican of the House Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis of California, took to the floor to protest the closed rule as well as the decision to bypass a committee markup.

“Regular order is designed to ensure that the people’s voices and interests are heard as serious public policy questions move through the legislative process,” Lewis said. “To have the Democrat leadership cut off the people’s right to be heard by such crass parliamentary maneuvers results in great harm to the Appropriations Committee and seriously undermines the credibility of the world’s most admired legislative body.”

At a Rules Committee meeting Wednesday Obey defended the process being used by Democrats. He argued that he opposes giving any more funding for the war but felt he had a professional obligation to produce a bill that can pass and that is why Democrats are taking this procedural path.

Republicans have argued that Congress should stick to providing only the war funding, instead of adding other items. Lewis introduced an alternate war spending bill (HR 6026) that matches Bush’s $178.1 billion request for the war in fiscal year 2008 and 2009.

Although Democrats have repeatedly tried to force an end to the war, they have been stymied by Bush’s willingness to veto bills in the past. At a news conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said she was not disappointed by her members.

“In the House of Representatives we have passed every resolution that we put forward to have a time certain or a goal for redeploying of our troops out of Iraq,” she said. “I’m very pleased with what we have been able to do in the House of Representatives and that’s what I am responsible for.”

But Pelosi said she was very disappointed by what Republicans in the Senate, who have the advantage of a filibuster, have been able to do. “[T]he president refuses to listen to the American people and the Republicans in the Senate are complicit,” she said.

Pelosi also sought to portray the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain of Arizona, as being a torchbearer for the current policy.

House Rejects War Funding, Tossing That Job to Senate

“The election of John McCain would be the third term of George Bush when it comes to Iraq and the economy,” she said.

The White House also objects to the Democrats’ plan to include a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits in the spending bill, along with a major expansion of GI Bill education benefits for benefits and language that would block new Medicaid regulations that shift costs from the federal government to the states.

The House Democrats’ plan would offset the 10-year, $52 billion cost of the expanded veterans’ benefit with a surtax on gross adjusted income of more than $500,000 for individuals and $1 million for couples. The White House said any tax increase in the bill will lead to a veto.

The tax increase to offset the GI Bill expansion is not expected to survive in the Senate, and the war policy provisions may also be dropped. Democrats are betting Bush won’t actually veto the spending bill because of the unemployment insurance or the veterans’ benefit. Or, if he does, Democrats believe they might be able to override it — or at least create campaign headaches for Republicans who are already facing problems with voters heading into the November elections.

In response to latest veto threat, Defense Subcommittee Chairman, John P. Murtha , D-Pa., said, “We’ll work it out.” When asked if it would be vetoed before that happened, Murtha said, “No.”

Administration officials and Republicans have called the extended jobless benefits unnecessary, noting that the nationwide unemployment rate is 5 percent, not high by historical standards, and in many states it is less than that.

The supplemental provision would give jobless workers in all states 13 weeks of benefits on top of the normal 26 weeks, and another 13 weeks beyond that in states with high unemployment. Some Republicans support the targeted the aid to states with high unemployment but not the extra 13 weeks nationwide.

The added unemployment benefits would cost $11.1 billion over 10 years.

The White House reiterated that the president wants to work with Democrats on expanding education benefits to help veterans pay for college. The Pentagon and the White House object to the way the Democrats plan is structured, saying it could hurt retention of military personnel because veterans could qualify for benefits after just three years of active duty service.

The Democrats’ plan is strongly supported by veterans organizations.

Jonathan Allen and Alan K. Ota contributed to this story.