Senate panel approves Iraq war funding bill

Remember the little phrase in Congressional bills "..and for other purposes," that we all wonder about, here is a perfect example.

5-16-2008 National:

The Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a sweeping emergency wartime funding package that includes restrictions on President Bush’s Iraq policy and provides tens of billions for new domestic programs.

The voice vote approval sets up a floor fight next week between the two parties over domestic priorities and the Iraq war on the eve of Congress’ one-week Memorial Day recess.

The package includes three separate amendments: $169 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through part of next year; more than $25 billion in new domestic spending; and language that sets a goal for the president to transition troops out of a military role in Iraq by June 2009.

The three different amendments will give Democrats who oppose the war an opportunity to vote for withdrawing troops without jeopardizing funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate is expected to ultimately reject the war policy amendment, which also includes a ban on permanent military bases in Iraq and language to give troops longer lag time in between troop deployments.

The chamber is anticipated to approve the troop-funding provision, but the prospects for the amendment adding domestic spending remain unclear.

Through a procedural maneuver, the bill would land on Bush’s desk as one bill. But the package first must clear the Senate and House, which earlier Thursday rejected a provision to spend $162 billion on the wars.

Bush has vowed to veto any bill that exceeds $178 billion for the wars through the rest of this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and for part of fiscal year 2009. He has called on Congress to keep the bill free of domestic add-ons, but Democrats are daring him to veto the bill at a time when a growing number of Americans are concerned about the economy and the direction of the country.

Republicans say Democrats are putting troops at risk by loading up the supplemental, which Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) characterized as “horse-blank.”

“What hogwash. Let’s all have a big laugh,” he said before mockingly laughing out loud.

“By the end of 2008, the war in Iraq will have cost over $600 billion,” the 90-year-old Byrd said in a scathing 30-minute opening statement. “More than $600 billion dollars for every minute since our lord Jesus Christ was born. That’s a staggering figure.”

A number of Republicans have joined Democrats in pushing to beef up the domestic spending in the supplemental measure, recognizing that the must-pass bill remains one of the few pieces of legislation likely to become law before November’s elections.

Still, the committee added some controversial provisions that could cost Democrats some GOP support and votes from the conservative wing of their caucus.

For instance, Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.

The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.

But critics say that it amounts to amnesty for people who entered the country illegally, and warn that it could imperil support for the underlying bill.

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a conservative Democrat who voted against the Feinstein-Craig amendment, said it raises a “red flag.”

He said he would wait until he sees the final product before determining whether to support the bill.

Other immigration measures were added as well, including one by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who sought a three-year extension on a returning worker provision under H-2B visas, which she said was necessary to save seasonal businesses like seafood companies. That amendment has the support of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

“It could be the end of crab meat,” she warned if the amendment were to be rejected. It was added to the Iraq-funding portion of the bill.

By a 20-9 vote, the committee also approved an amendment by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to increase low-income heating assistance by $1 billion.

The move prompted the ranking member of the committee, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), to warn that a slew of amendments that were being added could lead to a White House veto.

“I think we are getting carried away here with the ease with which we are running up the bill,” Cochran said. “We’re turning this bill into a huge bill to force the administration to veto it.”

But Cochran and a number of other Republicans are strongly supportive of many other domestic spending items in the bill. Cochran, for instance, backs $10.4 billion for Gulf Coast recovery from the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita. A number of centrist Republicans and ones in tough races support a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance, 11 Republicans are co-sponsoring a provision by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) to expand educational benefits for veterans, many support a plan to delay seven Medicaid rules issued by the Bush administration and $400 million of the so-called Byrne grants for state and local law enforcement remains very popular with both parties.

Those provisions, as well as billions of dollars for military-construction projects, might be too tough politically for Republicans to vote against, Democrats hope. And in the committee markup, Republicans were not shy about adding more funding on the domestic side.

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) won adoption of $50 million for an amendment to fund the Adam Walsh Act, a law aimed at tracking unregistered sex offenders. And Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) won adoption of a $100 million amendment to boost border security.

“I think what you saw today is a strong expression, bipartisan, from a number of people about our country addressing critical domestic issues,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, who is a member of Democratic leadership. “It’s now up to the full Senate to determine that.” ..more.. by The Hill