War-Funding Measure Passed, Without Funds for War
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
WASHINGTON — A war-funding measure passed the House of Representatives yesterday, but without any war funding.
As strange as that may sound, this is Congress, after all. Democratic leaders divided the emergency war-funding measure into different parts. The part that President Bush most wants — money for the troops — went down to defeat after many Republicans refused to support it in a protest against Democrats. The House approved, largely along party lines, the other parts — setting timelines for troop withdrawals, providing money to extend unemployment benefits, and imposing a new tax on higher-income taxpayers to pay for a new veterans’ education benefit.
But the White House has threatened to veto those provisions.
Yesterday’s action underscored the heightened state of tension in Congress in this politically charged election year. But it didn’t spell doom for the president’s request for more than $166 billion to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into early 2009.
Ultimately, Congress is expected to send Mr. Bush a bill funding military operations, especially because lawmakers are sensitive about being accused at election time of not supporting the troops.
The funding portion of the bill failed in the House because Republicans were angry that Democrats wrote the bill without GOP input, bypassing the Appropriations Committee and putting the $184-billion measure on the House floor without giving GOP lawmakers much time to read it. Democrats brushed off the complaint, saying they were following the same procedures used when Republicans controlled Congress.
While Democrats and Republicans were warring on the House floor, a Senate committee worked to write that chamber’s version of the war-spending measure. The Senate bill calls for more spending for domestic programs that the White House supports.
Senator Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia, the committee chairman and a fierce guardian of congressional prerogatives, signaled that he was prepared to confront the White House over the added domestic spending, even at age 90.
