House OKs $106 billion war funding bill

[chiefforlife]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31386942/ns/politics-capitol_hill//

updated 5:24 p.m. MT, Tues., June 16, 2009

WASHINGTON - War-funding legislation survived a fierce partisan battle in the House on Tuesday, a major step in providing commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan the money for military operations in the coming months.

The $106 billion measure, in addition to about $80 billion for military operations, provides for an array of other spending priorities, including $7.7 billion to respond to the flu pandemic and more than $10 billion in development and security aid for Pakistan and Iraq as well as countries such as Mexico and the nation of Georgia.

Democratic leaders pushing the bill on behalf of the Obama administration had to overcome an unusual alliance. Anti-war Democrats opposed continued war spending and Republicans condemned $5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, contended that Democrats were endangering troops by shifting money to create room for a "global bailout loan program."

The vote was 226-202, with only five Republicans voting for the bill and 32 Democrats opposing it.

'Stand up for them'
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said.

The Senate could move as early as this week on the legislation, which includes $1 billion to fund government rebates for consumers who trade in their old vehicles for more fuel-efficient models.

The Pentagon has said that without the bill the Army could start running out of war funds as early as July. President Barack Obama has pushed for the package, arguing that it is crucial to his efforts to wind down operations in Iraq while boosting personnel and fighting power in Afghanistan.

Republicans also objected to a decision by House-Senate negotiators to remove a provision prohibiting the release of photos depicting U.S. troops abusing detainees. It was taken out, "at the demands of the fringe left," said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Obama, in negotiating the removal of the provision, guaranteed that he would stop the release of photos showing detainee abuse.

Unable to count on Republicans, Democrats had to appeal to some of the 51 anti-war colleagues who opposed the legislation when it was first offered in May. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, indicated that he wouldn't change his "no" vote. "America has to start taking care of things here at home and we can't do it by continuing to support wars based on lies," he said.

Hoyer said, "One of the problems is we have some very deep-seated philosophical views that pursuing Afghanistan and Iraq with additional funding is not appropriate."

[chiefforlife]

Page 2

Votes swayed by other factors
Votes were swayed by other factors, such as the money to fight the flu pandemic and initiate the "cash for clunkers" auto program. Also in the measure is $534 million for 185,000 service members who have had their enlistments involuntarily extended since Sept. 11, 2001. They will receive $500 a month for every month they were held under stop-loss orders.

The measure also had nearly $7 billion in "add-ons," funds not sought by the Pentagon. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation said those additions include controversial programs that the Pentagon did not want, such as $2.17 billion for eight C-17 transport planes.

Passage of the bill, which provides funds through the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30, would bring to nearly $1 trillion the amount spent on the wars and other security matters since the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 70 percent of that has gone to Iraq, the Congressional Research Service said in an analysis.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Congress has passed similar war supplementals — meaning the money is not part of the regular Pentagon budget and adds to the federal deficit — every year since 2001. The White House has said that this will be the last war supplemental and that future spending will go through the regular appropriations process.

The administration is seeking $130 billion for war funds in the fiscal year 2010 starting in October, down from about $143 billion this year and $183 billion in fiscal 2008, the CRS said.

Click for related content
Panel details war spending waste, inefficiency
House panel orders cut in military budget
Major problems found in war spending

Obama's original request last October was for about $83 billion, including $75.5 billion for defense purposes. But as is customary, Congress used the must-pass bill as a vehicle for adding new programs, such as the "cash for clunkers" measure, and for increasing funds. Money for pandemic flu, for example, went up by about $4 billion.

The measure includes $10.4 billion in foreign aid, with $2.4 billion for Pakistan, $1.4 billion for economic development in Afghanistan and $700 million in international food aid.

House-Senate negotiators also reached compromises on several policy controversies: They denied the White House $80 million to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but agreed that detainees could be transferred to the United States to face trial. The issue of imprisoning convicted terrorists in the United States was put off for another day.

[chiefforlife]

This is complete BS! There is stuff in this that has NOTHING to do with the war. WE DONT HAVE ANY MONEY! What is it going to take for people to realize this.

I love this..."$5 billion in the measure to secure a $108 billion U.S. line of credit to the International Monetary Fund for loans to poor countries."

We are a poor country, in fact we have more debt than any other country, probably ALL other countries combined.

[irishjayhawk]

Here's what I don't get:

If Congress doesn't understand basic finance, why should they be mad at Wall Street for not understanding basic finance?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Here's what I don't get:

If Congress doesn't understand basic finance, why should they be mad at Wall Street for not understanding basic finance?

Congress is run by Wall street.

[chiefforlife]

Here's what I don't get:

If Congress doesn't understand basic finance, why should they be mad at Wall Street for not understanding basic finance?

Here is something else, ONLY 5 REPUBLICANS voted for it? What happened to, "if you dont vote for the money, you aren't supporting the troops."

[Guru]

Don't you just love printing money. This is getting beyond out of hand now. Well, no it was beyond that already.

[petegz28]

Lord knows the Troops won't make it without Cash for Clunkers!

[chiefforlife]

Don't you just love printing money. This is getting beyond out of hand now. Well, no it was beyond that already.

I agree. This is out of control. What happened to Obamas "Pay as you go". Every day we hear about BILLIONS of dollars for this or that. Heck Millions is just pocket change, not even worth mentioning anymore. IT HAS TO STOP!

[petegz28]

I agree. This is out of control. What happened to Obamas "Pay as you go". Every day we hear about BILLIONS of dollars for this or that. Heck Millions is just pocket change, not even worth mentioning anymore. IT HAS TO STOP!

Aw come on...this was all inherited. He and Congress are being forced to spend this money because of Bush.

[Guru]

I agree. This is out of control. What happened to Obamas "Pay as you go". Every day we hear about BILLIONS of dollars for this or that. Heck Millions is just pocket change, not even worth mentioning anymore. IT HAS TO STOP!That whole "drop in a bucket" thing ticks me off too. A million dollars is still a million dollars.:cuss: More than most of us will EVER see in our lifetimes.

[irishjayhawk]

Here is something else, ONLY 5 REPUBLICANS voted for it? What happened to, "if you dont vote for the money, you aren't supporting the troops."

Very valid point.

[chiefforlife]

Aw come on...this was all inherited. He and Congress are being forced to spend this money because of Bush.

I did buy into that, for a little while.
Now I wish I had stuck to my original thought process, Bad business's fail and go away. Thats how it works. People that loan money know there is a risk, if they took to much risk, they lose. They should go away also. Markets and people recover. We would be well into the recovery and our government would have a LOT more money.

[petegz28]

I did buy into that, for a little while.
Now I wish I had stuck to my original thought process, Bad business's fail and go away. Thats how it works. People that loan money know there is a risk, if they took to much risk, they lose. They should go away also. Markets and people recover. We would be well into the recovery and our government would have a LOT more money.

I agree...I was for helping the financials to ease the pain of their death but it has gotten out of hand.

What was supposed to be some "loans" to some financial institutions has gone to dicating corporate policy and ownership of auto makers in the blink of an eye.

[SBK]

At least this isn't a trillion dollar guess that our VP can go on tv and say "oops."

[patteeu]

Here is something else, ONLY 5 REPUBLICANS voted for it? What happened to, "if you dont vote for the money, you aren't supporting the troops."

The troops weren't in any danger of not getting their money.

[J Diddy]

The troops weren't in any danger of not getting their money.



Thank god.

[mlyonsd]

The troops weren't in any danger of not getting their money.

But now, if they hurry, they can turn in their clunkers for some real cash.

[chiefforlife]

The troops weren't in any danger of not getting their money.

Really, it says they would have run out of money as early as July, without this. Still doesnt answer the question, why dont the Republicans support the troops now?

[patteeu]

Really, it says they would have run out of money as early as July, without this. Still doesnt answer the question, why dont the Republicans support the troops now?

It did answer the question. This wasn't a matter of whether the troops would get their money or not.

[chiefforlife]

It did answer the question. This wasn't a matter of whether the troops would get their money or not.

'Stand up for them'
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said.

Pat, seriously.

Im not calling you out but this is for the troops. Its the WAR FUND. Why is it now OK for the Republicans to not support it? Before it was un-patriotic.

[mlyonsd]

'Stand up for them'
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said.

Pat, seriously.

Im not calling you out but this is for the troops. Its the WAR FUND. Why is it now OK for the Republicans to not support it? Before it was un-patriotic.

Probably because democrats dropped certain provisions of the orginal bill that would help protect the troops.

I think that's a valid enough reason.

[chiefforlife]

Probably because democrats dropped certain provisions of the orginal bill that would help protect the troops.

I think that's a valid enough reason.

Like what? Even if they did, the money is still for the troops. How could they oppose it now, after the big deal they made out of it.

[KC Dan]

'Stand up for them'
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said.

Pat, seriously.

Im not calling you out but this is for the troops. Its the WAR FUND. Why is it now OK for the Republicans to not support it? Before it was un-patriotic.Question for you: If this is a WAR FUND, why isn't 100% of the money for the troops or defense? Why are there millions for other crap pet projects like the IMF money and the flu money? What do those projects have to do with a WAR FUND?

[jiveturkey]

Question for you: If this is a WAR FUND, why isn't 100% of the money for the troops or defense? Why are there millions for other crap pet projects like the IMF money and the flu money? What do those projects have to do with a WAR FUND?Didn't this same exact thing happen multiple times during the Bush years and the dems would cry foul because there was extra shit in the bill? And then get plastered with "that guy must hate troops and what not".

Am I crazy?

[KC Dan]

Didn't this same exact thing happen multiple times during the Bush years and the dems would cry foul because there was extra shit in the bill? And then get plastered with "that guy must hate troops and what not".

Am I crazy?
No, you are dead on! This fuggin' demogogery (sp?) has to stop. It is out of control and gets worse each congressional session. I am pissed at the dems for pulling it now but I am even more pissed at the repubs for doing this crap from '92-06. Just because the repubs did it when they had the power doesn't make it right or acceptable now.

Thank God that I am not in Congress because if there was appropriations in a bill that had nothing to do with the bill - I would stamp it with a big f'n NO! Regardless of how bad I wanted the other stuff.

[jiveturkey]

We can certainly agree on all of that. :clap:

[chiefforlife]

Question for you: If this is a WAR FUND, why isn't 100% of the money for the troops or defense? Why are there millions for other crap pet projects like the IMF money and the flu money? What do those projects have to do with a WAR FUND?

Go back and read my post in the beginning, that was my whole point. It was only a side note that NOW the Republicans oppose the war fund, after smearing anyone who opposed it before.

[patteeu]

'Stand up for them'
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., unsuccessfully appealed to Republicans for support, saying 80 percent of the package still went to the troops. "Stand up for them," he said.

Pat, seriously.

Im not calling you out but this is for the troops. Its the WAR FUND. Why is it now OK for the Republicans to not support it? Before it was un-patriotic.

The Republicans aren't going to withhold funds for the troops. They don't have that power and if push comes to shove, they won't let funding run out. This is a case of democrats playing politics. I would hope that eventually people would stop falling for it.

[patteeu]

Like what? Even if they did, the money is still for the troops. How could they oppose it now, after the big deal they made out of it.

The difference between then and now is that the democrats were showing reluctance when asked to vote on relatively clean funding bills (they wanted to add such things as timetables and tax increases) whereas the Republicans aren't being given the opportunity to support a clean funding bill because the democrats are trying to piggyback 25% additional spending onto it (and strip it of a significant protection for the troops). If push comes to shove and the troops need the money, the Republicans won't let them down. That's not how they roll, so to speak.

[patteeu]

Like what? Even if they did, the money is still for the troops. How could they oppose it now, after the big deal they made out of it.

I think he's probably talking about the provision that would keep the abuse photos from being released.

[patteeu]

Didn't this same exact thing happen multiple times during the Bush years and the dems would cry foul because there was extra shit in the bill? And then get plastered with "that guy must hate troops and what not".

Am I crazy?

Do you have any examples of Republicans doing this? I'm sure that there were a few things tacked on to war funding bills prior to the democrats taking over Congress in 2006, but I can't think of anything major that led enough members of Congress to vote NO and threaten passage. When the democrats were in control, between 2006 and 2008, there were games played by democrats to get timetables added and other provisions that weren't directly related to funding but I don't really remember the Republicans doing this kind of thing too much.

[mlyonsd]

I think he's probably talking about the provision that would keep the abuse photos from being released.

I was but it was an older story. It sounds like Graham agreed to terms with the WH today that Obama would classify the photos if it became necessary to keep them from the light of day.

One would hope Obama's word would be sufficient.

[Calcountry]

Here's what I don't get:

If Congress doesn't understand basic finance, why should they be mad at Wall Street for not understanding basic finance?Most people view their inflows as , well, inflows. The government views their receipts, revenue, as a reserve requirement with which to base their borrowing. And you want to know why we are phuqued?

[Calcountry]

Obama was asked, at a debate, if he would have to curtail some of his agenda due to the impending and then unfolding in real time economic crises.

Apparently he doesn't think he has to. :shrug: oh well, WTF, what are you drinking tonight?