The Democrat-led House yesterday passed a war-funding bill that failed to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The unusual outcome occurred when Republicans used a parliamentary maneuver to sabotage Democrats’ plans to tie the proposed $162.5 billion for the wars to a veto-provoking 18-month pullout timetable, domestic programs and a tax increase.
In the aftermath of the vote, accusations of political gamesmanship were traded across the aisle.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said the Democratic leaders designed the bill to draw a veto from President Bush and delay the war funds.
“The sooner we blew up this process, the sooner we can get a clean troop-funding bill to the president’s desk that he will sign,” Mr. Boehner said. “So, actually, we speed this process up by exposing the cynicism that was brought to the floor today.”
Republicans said they were protesting the Democrats’ move to ram the bill through the chamber without giving the minority party an opportunity to offer amendments or a vote to send the bill back to committee.
Rep. David R. Obey, Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said the Republicans “voted for a cutesy-pie gimmick” to try to disrupt the process.
Mr. Obey, who voted against the war funds, bristled at the suggestion that Democrats face criticism for passing a meaningless appropriations bill.
“Why are we subject to criticism for idiocy that the other side committed?” he said.
He said the ploy reflected the disarray of House Republicans, who are scrambling to redefine the party.
“They are panicked. They are confused. They can’t get rid of George Bush fast enough,” Mr. Obey said.
Two-thirds of the chamber’s Republicans voted “present” on a vote to put war funding into the bill, allowing the measure to fail and highlighting the absence of Democratic support for troop funds. Democrats voted against troop funding by 147-85, while Republicans voted for it by 56-2, meaning the measure failed on a 149-141 vote, with 132 “present” votes, all Republican.
Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat and member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said the Republican “present” vote was a show of cold political calculation.
“The whole ’present’ vote was nothing but politics, playing fast and loose with the lives of these young men and women,” said Mrs. DeLauro, who voted against the troop funds. “It’s really pretty extraordinary.”
Later though, the Democrats overwhelmingly backed separate votes for pullout plans and at least $21.2 billion of domestic spending and a surtax on millionaires to pay for an expansion of GI education benefits, estimated to cost $51.6 billion over 10 years.
The 0.5 percent surtax, dubbed the “Patriot Tax” by Democrats, would apply to individuals earning more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million. It would take an extra $500 from $1 million earners, but Republicans said 82 percent of those hit would be people with small businesses.
Those measures passed in near party-line votes.
The eviscerated House bill heads to an uncertain fate in the Senate, where the add-ons had promised to bog down the bill even before yesterday’s maneuvering made those measures the totality of the legislation.
“It is safe to say that given today’s results in the House, where Republicans panicked and went into a complete and utter free fall, that no final decisions have been made yet on which amendments get offered when and how,” said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat.
The Senate, which passed out of committee yesterday a war bill similar to the House version but without the surtax, is scheduled to take up the issue next week.
A final bill is not expected until next month, when the Pentagon says it will be running out of money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democratic leaders split the bill into three parts with separate votes on war funds, on war policy restrictions and on extra domestic spending, including a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and expansion of the GI Bill.
The piecemeal approach was intended to give anti-war Democrats political cover to oppose troop funding but vote for domestic programs and war policy restrictions that include a pullout plan, a mandate that Iraqis pay for reconstruction and a ban on harsh interrogation techniques.
The Democrats expected to use Republican votes to pass the war funds, but Republicans refused to follow the script, highlighting divisions among House Democrats between members who are willing to fund U.S. forces and members who want the U.S. to withdraw immediately and don’t want to fund anything other than withdrawal.
” ’Everyone knew’ Republicans were going to vote for the funding,” a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, said after the vote. “This is a [Republican] Party in crisis.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.