Thread: House rejects bill funding Iraq, Afghanistan wars

House rejects bill funding Iraq, Afghanistan wars
Article History
This is the latest version.
May 15, 2008 9:07 PM (3 hrs ago) By ANDREW TAYLOR, AP
Filed under: WASHINGTON , ANDREW TAYLOR , Congress Iraq Funding

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - President 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 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 GOP 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 GI education benefits.

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.

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 GOP 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.

But some Senate Republicans didn't get the message.

Conservatives Larry Craig, R-Idaho and Richard Shelby, R-Ala., for example, sent out numerous news releases crowing about domestic add-ons such as $450 million to combat Western wildfires and $75 million to help commercial fishermen in a substantially more expensive Senate companion measure that cleared the Appropriations panel Thursday afternoon.

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, R-Ohio. "All this bill's going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games."

The GOP 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, D-Calif. "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.

The new GI Bill essentially would guarantee a full scholarship at any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for people who serve in the military for at least three years. It is aimed at replicating the benefits awarded veterans of World War II and would cost $52 billion over 10 years.

To pay for it 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. Couples would pay the tax on income exceeding $1 million.

"We are talking about people who are making over $1 million to pay a small sacrifice for this war where our military families are paying a huge sacrifice," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

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.

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said the Democratic bill "would bust the budget with billions in non-emergency spending but also raise taxes on small business. I can't think of a worse time to implement a tax increase with a weak economy that is struggling to create and grow jobs."

The war spending portion would have provided $163 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.

Besides the GI benefits, Democrats have tacked on a plan to give 13 more weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have expired and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates.

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.

(This version CORRECTS the vote total on an Iraq exit measure to 227-196, not 224-196.)
http://www.examiner.com/a-1393878~House ... _wars.html

isnt this the bill that had the AgJobs Amnesty

Originally Posted by AirborneSapper7

isnt this the bill that had the AgJobs Amnesty

that is what I want to know

AirborneSapper7 wrote:
isnt this the bill that had the AgJobs Amnesty


that is what I want to know

if it was there sure was no mention of it in this article

This is the House Bill not the Senate Bill, it didn't have the Ag Amnesty in it.

But some Senate Republicans didn't get the message

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, R-Ohio. "All this bill's going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games."

This bill had different add-ons.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

This is the House Bill not the Senate Bill, it didn't have the Ag Amnesty in it.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

But some Senate Republicans didn't get the message

[quote:cmf3be0e]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, R-Ohio. "All this bill's going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games."

This bill had different add-ons.[/quote:cmf3be0e]





But, this could possibly be good news in terms of the Senate bill not having a chance once it reaches the House, couldn't it?

This is an article on the House Ag Bill they passed on Wed. nothing in it about workers.

Ag bill directs billions to California

House approves its plan by a wide margin, Senate is expected to vote today

By MICHAEL DOYLE
BEE WASHINGTON BUREAU

last updated: May 15, 2008 05:28:30 PM

WASHINGTON -- Central Valley farmers harvest serious coin in the farm bill approved Wednesday by the House.

While President Bush calls the bill a big mistake, many valley farmers disagree. Whether or not the $289 billion package is a long-term good idea, it undeniably steers money toward the nation's most abundant agricultural region.

"Past farm bills didn't work for California, oftentimes," noted Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced. This bill, he added, included "significant benefits" for the state.

The House approved the bill 318 to 106, sufficient to overcome Bush's promised veto. With many Republicans abandoning the president's position, the Senate is expected to follow suit as early as today.

The farm bill's California-related provisions and impacts include:

School snacks

The bill includes $1 billion to expand a fresh fruit and vegetable snack program to all 50 states. Currently, the program is limited to schools in 14 states, and California hasn't been included.

This billion-dollar boost could be a twofer, aiding valley farms and schools alike. Using federal funds, eligible schools will be buying local produce to provide students with healthy snacks in kiosks and cafeterias. Carrots, celery, apples, oranges, pears and grapes are typically among the leading snacks bought, an Agriculture Department study found.

To participate, schools must have at least half of their students eligible for free and reduced-price school lunches. Many valley schools fit the bill. In Yuba, Merced and Fresno counties, for instance, more than 63 percent of schoolchildren were eligible for free and reduced priced meals.

Block grants for specialty crops

These are a mixed bag, as even some California farm lobbyists question their benefit. Nonetheless, the bill includes $466 million over 10 years for block grants to help states research and promote specialty crops, which include fruits, vegetables, nuts, dried fruits and flowers.

Lawmakers spread the political benefit by guaranteeing every state at least $100,000 annually. This reduces the amount that's distributed on the basis of a state's specialty crop production, thereby cutting California's share. Even so, California ends up with more than other states.

Past specialty crop block grants have funded walnut research at the University of California at Davis, subsidized salad bars in California schools and helped pay for Buy California promotional materials deployed in stores. Look for more of the same with the new funding.

"A lot of progress has been made from where we were five years ago," said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, a member of the House Agriculture Committee.

Traditional crop subsidies

California farmers do not rely on commodity subsidies nearly as much as farmers in states such as Iowa and North Dakota. Still, California's rice, wheat, cotton and corn growers did harvest about $435 million in commodity payments in 2006, according to data collected by the Environmental Working Group.

The payments are concentrated. Fresno, Kern, Kings and Tulare county farmers alone account for about one-fourth of the state's total. By and large, the new farm bill retains these commodity programs.

Environmental programs

The Agriculture Department's existing Environmental Quality Incentive Program will include $150 million to assist farmers in regions with serious air pollution. The money will help pay for new engines, pumps and other equipment, as well as air- friendly activities, including chipping orchard clippings instead of burning them.

A big priority for Cardoza and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, the program was written specifically with the smoggy San Joaquin Valley in mind. In another green maneuver, California lawmakers included the Sacramento River watershed among several high-priority regions eligible for new "agricultural water enhancement" funding.

"We have the unique opportunity to shape the land and water preservation programs from the ground up," said Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento.

Market access program

The bill authorizes $200 million a year for the Market Access Program, well known among California farmers. This is the same funding level approved in the 2002 farm bill, but markedly less than specialty crop lobbyists had hoped for. It is less than the House and Senate originally offered.

The program provides grants for overseas ads and promotional efforts. Most recently, for instance, the California Walnut Commission received a $3.5 million grant to boost imports, while the California Cling Peach Board received an $812,000 grant for the same purposes. California farm groups consistently have been the biggest beneficiaries of the program.

Asparagus

San Joaquin County asparagus farmers, among the nation's most productive, can pick up a share of $15 million, courtesy of a Michigan senator.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow included the money, to be divided equally between producers of fresh and processed or frozen asparagus. The money is supposed to compensate farmers hurt by South American imports in 2004-07.

Dairy

The Dairy Promotion and Research Program, funded by industry fees, will grow under the farm bill. Following up on earlier efforts, the legislation will start assessing dairy product importers. They will pay 7½ cents per hundredweight, and the additional money will help fund ads and marketing campaigns.

The current dairy promotion program raises about $158 million a year. The money, for instance, has funded promotions for ham and cheese and other "dairy friendly" meals at Wendy's restaurants, as well as the "cheesy bites pizza" offered by Pizza Hut.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/299140.html