Blue Dog Chicken Hawks Fine With Blowing $160 Billion But Outraged at Idea of Spending $2 Billion on Something Useful

Defensive Strategy is Behind House Leaders’ Plan for War Funding Bill
By Alan K. Ota, CQ

To understand the House leadership’s plan for action on the war spending bill, begin by recognizing that the last thing the majority wants is a deadlock exposing Democrats to charges of abandoning the troops.

Then come to grips with the fact that Democratic leaders are not aiming to force a troop withdrawal with the latest supplemental spending bill, nor are they determined to use the bill as a vehicle for domestic spending.

In other words, the leadership’s strategy for the spending bill headed to floor on Thursday is defensive in nature and designed to frustrate the desires of most Democrats.

A prime tactical objective is avoiding a stalemate with the Blue Dog Coalition. The conservative faction has been fertile ground for raiding by the Republican minority on procedural votes designed to appeal to a conservative base, so the leadership hatched a plan to lock the door against such defections.

But there is more involved. The leaders are also trying to accommodate Democrats representing antiwar or conservative districts by staging the floor action in a way that allows both liberal and conservative Democrats to vote in line with the views of their constituents without endangering passage of the war money.

“The people on the other side of the aisle have made clear they are going to use whatever means they have to block legislation. We will use whatever we have to use to pass legislation,” said John Larson of Connecticut, vice chairman of the
Democratic Caucus.

House Republicans will be able to slow progress on the war funding bill in protest, but not stop the supplemental or shape it beyond voting on amendments drafted by Democrats.

The same goes for Blue Dogs and antiwar Democrats — unless enough of them unite with the GOP to defeat the resolution establishing the ground rules for the floor debate.

Alan Boyd, a Florida Blue Dog, warned the leadership on Wednesday that defections on the rule are possible. “We’ve had conversations with the majority leader and he asked ‘Where are we?’ and we’ve tried to tell him that we don’t think you have much support at all among the Blue Dog group for doing it this way,” Boyd said.

The leadership must pay attention to the fiscally conservative wing of the caucus because the Democratic advantage in the House is not large enough to overcome 47 potential Blue Dog defections.

“They respect our numbers,” said Mike Ross of Arkansas, a Blue Dog co-chairman.

“All our legislation is by consensus,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “They have been a very major force for fiscal discipline in the Congress.”

Series of Amendments

The supplemental is riding — without a committee markup — on the shell of the previously abandoned fiscal 2008 spending bill for military construction and veterans affairs (HR 2642). That rules out pesky GOP motions to send the measure back to committee with instructions to make additions or deletions. It is those recommittal motions that have been luring Blue Dogs across party lines.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged that the previously passed bill is being used as a vehicle in order to avoid procedural roadblocks.

“It’s going to be a battle week. You do what they are trying to do on the supplemental and just shut off minority rights,” said Zach Wamp, R-Tenn, a senior appropriator.

Spending add-ons that Democratic leaders want attached to the supplemental will be offered as an amendment to the bill — separate from two others that would provide the war funding and call for troop withdrawals.

Advocates of the domestic spending and lawmakers who want to require a withdrawal from Iraq can thus support those causes without ultimately having to take the risky step of opposing the war funding bill.

Blue Dog Differences

Blue Dogs said Wednesday they strongly oppose adding money to the bill that is unrelated to the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are particularly unhappy that the cost of a proposed $2.5 billion to $4 billion add-on for veterans’ education benefits would not be offset by revenue increases or cuts in other spending — as would be required if the “emergency” spending in the appropriations bill were subject to the pay-as-you-go rule.

“How does it honor our veterans to add new benefits if we have to borrow from China to pay for them?” asked Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. “It must be real emergency spending to be added to the supplemental.”

Hoyer said the Blue Dogs have a point on pay-as-you go, but urged them not to stage a revolt over the issue.

The supplemental showdown is the latest skirmish in an ongoing clash between Blue Dogs, who insist on enforcement of the pay-as-you-go rules, and party leaders who argue for pragmatic exceptions. The Blue Dogs and Democratic leaders are also often at odds on immigration and national security issues.

It was a pressure from Republicans and Blue Dogs, and the threat of successful discharge petitions, that led Pelosi to allow hearings earlier this week on an immigration security bill (HR 4088) and to extend negotiations on an overhaul (HR 3773) of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (PL 95-511) that contains a contentious liability exemption for telecommunications providers.

A similar bipartisan insurgency is attempting to revive legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia (HR 5724), possibly during a post-election session.

What separates the Blue Dogs from other Democratic factions has been their willingness to take their disputes with leadership to the House floor, and even to vote for Republican motions viewed as poison pills for legislation important to the party.

“The leaders want as much unity as possible,” said Joe Donnelly, a Blue Dog from Indiana. “But they understand that . . . I told the voters I would put our interests first.
”Source: CQ Today Online News
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
May 7, 2008 – 1:44 p.m.
Bipartisan War Funding Plan Breaks With President’s Request
By Josh Rogin and David Clarke, CQ Staff

The emerging House supplemental spending bill contains military funding for fiscal 2008 and 2009 that diverges sharply from the administration’s request, according to the office of John P. Murtha, D-Pa.

The $96.6 billion military spending portion of the bill, crafted on a bipartisan basis by the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, is $3.4 billion below the president’s request. It would shift billions of dollars around within the overall total, beefing up funding for procurement of aircraft, healthcare for soldiers and veterans, and equipment for the National Guard and Reserves.

“We’re trying to look beyond Iraq,” Murtha said.

A “bridge fund” section, which would provide $65.9 billion for war-related military spending in fiscal 2009, was produced before the administration finally sent Congress details of its request May 2.

Murtha, who chairs the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, criticized the administration for making only a $70 billion “placeholder” aggregate request for fiscal 2009 in its February budget release, in violation of the 2007 national defense authorization act (PL 109-364).

Murtha scoffed at Pentagon claims that if the war money isn’t delivered soon, the Army will be forced to stop paying soldiers.

“We know what the numbers are, we know the troops are going to get paid,” Murtha said.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders on Wednesday still faced with opposition from within their party to domestic and veterans’ spending in the bill that would violate pay-as-you-go budget rules.

And Republicans were gumming up the House floor with procedural protests over the way the supplemental was developed, a process that skipped the normal Appropriations Committee markup. Their tactics slowed progress on a major housing package (HR 3221) to a snail’s pace.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said he wasn’t sure the House would take up the war funding bill Thursday, blaming the Republican slowdown. “I don’t know whether we’re going to get to it, we’re going to do housing and we’re still embroiled here,” he said.

Three Amendments, One Bill

Both years’ worth of war funding will be considered in the first amendment to a leftover fiscal 2008 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill (HR 2642) that Democratic leaders will resurrect to serve as the vehicle for the supplemental bill.

Two other amendments will contain Iraq war policy riders and a package of miscellaneous additional spending for purposes ranging from a major expansion of GI Bill education benefits for veterans to an extension of unemployment compensation.

Only the war funding is likely to enjoy a fairly easy path to adoption in the House and avoid problems in the Senate.

The fiscal 2008 section of the military funding section would shift funds from the administration request and add:

• $3.6 billion for 15 C-17 Globemaster strategic airlifters;
• $2.5 billion for 34 C-130s.
• $573 million for the defense healthcare program;
• $793 million for military medical treatment facilities;
• $68 million to help the Army implement the Wounded Warrior program;
• $750 million for Guard and Reserve equipment.
• $65.4 million to help returning guard and reserve members reintegrate into civilian life;
• $3.5 billion to address the increased cost of fuel; and
• $102 million to equip a new brigade of soldiers with the Land Warrior equipment, a package of soldier-mounted networking and communications equipment.

The Land Warrior program, which the Army tried to cancel last year despite over a decade of research and billions of dollars invested, has been propped up by Congress with piecemeal appropriations.

The Army’s 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment out Fort Lewis, Wash., was deployed to Iraq last summer with the equipment.

Money for advanced procurement of F-22 Raptor fighter jets did not make it into the bill because of Senate opposition, Murtha said. That production line is slated to close at the end of fiscal 2009 barring any new funding streams.

Blue Dogs Remain Restive

Democratic leaders are facing stiff opposition to their three-part bill from some members of their own party — the 47-member Blue Dog coalition — that could scuttle plans to bring the measure to the floor this week.

The Blue Dogs are upset that the cost of enhanced education benefits for veterans would not be offset. The popular benefits amount to new mandatory spending, but because they are attached to an emergency appropriations bill the anti-deficit “pay-as-you-go” budget rule does not apply to them.

Blue Dogs have made the PAYGO rule, which requires new mandatory spending or tax cuts to be fully offset, their signature issue. They argue attaching the benefit to an emergency spending bill violates the PAYGO principle that Democrats have heralded as proof that they govern in a fiscally responsible manner.

“I’ve never seen the Blue Dogs this unified, this upset,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.

House Republicans said Democrats were disguising the true cost of the legislation because the more generous GI Bill benefits would continue in effect long after fiscal 2009 has come to and end.

Details of the GI Bill provision have not been released but it is based on a bill (S 22) introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would provide more funding to help veterans pay college costs.

That measure would give veterans educational benefits equal to the highest tuition rates of a public college or university in their state, as well as a monthly housing stipend determined by geographical area.

Webb’s office said that preliminary estimates from the Congressional Budget Office show the new benefit could cost between $2.5 billion to $4 billion annually. An official cost estimate has not been released.

House Democrats plan to bring the legislation to the floor under an unusual procedure that will allow separate votes on the three sections of the supplemental — war funding, restrictions on war policy and miscellaneous funding such as the GI Bill expansion.

The rule for consideration of the legislation would combine the three amendments into a single package upon adoption and send the final bill to the Senate.

Rep. Allen Boyd, D-Fla., a Blue Dog leader, said it is possible many Blue Dogs would vote against the rule, which no Republicans are expected to support. If the rule is not adopted, the carefully crafted plan for moving the overall package would collapse.

Blue Dogs met Tuesday to discuss the supplemental. Boyd said the group did not take a formal position on how members should vote, but he said they have warned leadership about the unhappiness expressed by members of the group.

“We’ve had conversations with the majority leader and he asked ‘where are we,’ and we’ve tried to tell him that we don’t think you have much support at all among the Blue Dog group for doing it this way,” Boyd said.

But House SpeakerNancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday she does not think pay-as-you-go rules should apply to the expanded GI Bill benefits for veterans. “We are going to spend nearly $200 billion on the war in Iraq, and it’s not paid for. So I think it’s OK for us not to pay for the education of our troops when they come home,’’ she said.

But she added, “I support pay-go’’ in general. She even said, as she has before, that she’d like to see the requirement become law, rather than merely a rule.

Meanwhile, House Republicans continued to voice their displeasure that Democrats do not plan to hold a committee markup of the bill. To protest, they have been forcing repeated votes on motions to adjourn.

“We’re going to continue to give Democrats the chance to do the right thing,” said Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.

The president stuck to his veto threat against the bill after meeting with House Republicans Wednesday morning.

“I told the members I support $108 billion supplemental spending without any strings, and that we’re going to work towards that goal,” Bush said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., signaled that GOP protests may spill over to his chamber.

McConnell said that the “process has been extraordinarily flawed,” giving Republicans in both chambers no real opportunity to contribute to the bill.

“ It has the tendency to unify the minority in procedure,” he warned.

Edward Epstein and Catharine Richert contributed to this story.
Source: CQ Today Online News
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.